Black Powder in War

[LeadZinger]

Interesting enough the surviving medical reports from both the Union and Confederate Medical Departments indicate that very few deaths or wounds occurred from the use of the bayonet or swords. After the war I believe there was an official study on this particular matter and the conclusion was that edged weapons just were not effective in modern warfare of the time. Death from blount trauma was much more common. This all seems to point to the conclusion that in a melee soldiers much preferred to use their muskets and pistol butts as clubs, along with the ever present rock.

At 2nd Bull Run some of A P Hills units threw rocks when ammunition ran out, as did units belonging to George Thomas at Chickamauga. After Antietam and Shiloh, with only a few exceptions, units quit standing in alignment delivering volley fire at an opponent standing yards away doing the same. Soldiers of the time were not stupid and soon learned that the best battle line was one on which they created some cover and built up an overwhelming mass of independent fire power with which to discourage an attacking or defending enemy.

Because of this change in tactics I believe that the 2nd most important thing on the battle line after amumnition was water. This was probably used liberally to clean out fouled rifles with urinating down the bore a distant option. Soldiers were probably to dehydrated themselves to do this very often after a period of time on the line. Ammunition and water parties are frequently mentioned in unit histories of recorded battles. Veteran units would take it upon themselves to conduct a retrograd movement when; they ran out of ammunition; they ran out of water; they felt the opposing force had the greater firepower, and definetely when all three occurred at once.

First person diaries, letters, unit histories, after action reports found in the Official Records are all great sources from which to build a picture of just what life was like during the Civil War.

[SIGSHR]

A lot depends on what war at what time. I read about John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough, during the War of the Spanish Succession 1701-1714 he usually fought only 1 or two major battles each year plus some sieges. A combination of a lack of surplus manpower which made replacing casualties difficult, a lack of agricultural surplus which made logistical considerations paramount-since wars were considered disputes between rulers rather than nation, foraging and requisitioning from the peasants was frowned on and rarely resorted to- poor roads, transport totally dependent on wagons put more emphasis on maneuver than combat.

[johnwilliamson062]

maillemaker,
Whaty you describe as your weekend activity is nothing like James K presents.
You are firing at half the rate when active. Active less than half the time (5 minutes shooting, 5 resetting targets and getting a drink, plus breaks). I am not sure how many matches you shoot, but you indicate 60 rounds per match, half of what was mentioned. If you are shooting 60 rounds in 4-6 hours, my guess as to what you mean by a whole day of shooting and shooting a match a day, that only works out to one in 4 or one in 6 minutes. 1/16th to 1/64th the rate top soldiers of the era are credited with.

I might be able to shoot two rounds a minute loading as fast as I could with a musket. That would take 20 minutes to shoot all 40. I would not be at my best at that point. Extend it out to 60 or 120 rounds in 30 or 60 minutes, combined with breathing the smoke and having it in my eyes, the other stresses of the battlefield, the heat of it all, etc, and I probably couldn't make it. Mix in normal Civil War era pre-battle conditions such as marching on foot, nutrition, sleeping on the ground, constant sickness and my prospects lower considerably.

A single anecdote with estimated numbers in a range of nearly one order magnitude. More Western mythology than data. Besides, the Rangers were using revolvers. If either side in the civil war had soldiers armed 100% with two revolvers instead of muskets it would have been a different war. Since you load the cylinder with 6 positions one could fire 48-60 rounds before reaching the aforementioned fouling limit of 4-5.
The musket was a junk weapon even with a mini-ball, but when you are arming tens of thousands that come from all walks of life it makes sense.

[thallub]

I thought this was the whole point of the miniball round. Undersize for easy loading in a fouled barrel the hollow base expands to engage the rifling when fired

"Easy loading" may have been an elusive thing after many rounds were fired. i have hundreds of spent US Army bullets that i picked up from civil war battle fields and firing ranges. About ten percent of those bullets show signs of being very difficult to load. Most noticeable are badly deformed ogives from pounding or "whanging" the ramrod onto the bullet.

[maillemaker]

Whaty you describe as your weekend activity is nothing like James K presents.
You are firing at half the rate when active. Active less than half the time (5 minutes shooting, 5 resetting targets and getting a drink, plus breaks). I am not sure how many matches you shoot, but you indicate 60 rounds per match, half of what was mentioned. If you are shooting 60 rounds in 4-6 hours, my guess as to what you mean by a whole day of shooting and shooting a match a day, that only works out to one in 4 or one in 6 minutes. 1/16th to 1/64th the rate top soldiers of the era are credited with.

A typical N-SSA team competition starts at noon on Saturday, following individual target shooting that was going on all morning.

Typically they shoot at least Carbine and Smoothbore. Sometimes also Revolver.

Carbine events typically involve 4-5 courses of fire, starting at 50 yards with 20 clay pigeons on a sheet of cardboard, followed by 10 hanging pigeons, followed by 10 hanging tiles, followed by 10 hanging water-filled coffee cups, followed by 5 2-liter bottles at 100 yards.

When we do poorly and go full time, I typically shoot 12 or so shots per course of fire, and courses of fire are 5 minutes long. So a little over 2 shots per minute, and about 60 shots for the entire team event. However, often we do well and clear our targets before the full time allotment and so of course I shoot fewer shots. Typically there is about 5-10 minutes in between courses of fire, which is just enough time to clean your gun and hang targets for the next course of fire.

This is immediately followed by Smoothbore which follows a similar format except I think their events are only 3 minutes long and are at 25 and 50 yards. I don't have a smoothbore yet so I don't shoot this event.

This is followed by revolver or sometimes specialty matches such as repeating rifles.

Sunday morning is for musket shooting and is the same format as carbine.

I make up 100 rounds for my long arms and usually shoot about 75 of them between team and individual shooting. I'm betting the smoothbore guys probably shoot 50 or so rounds. So you can figure 200 rounds over the course of the weekend.

Steve

[maillemaker]

I might be able to shoot two rounds a minute loading as fast as I could with a musket. That would take 20 minutes to shoot all 40. I would not be at my best at that point. Extend it out to 60 or 120 rounds in 30 or 60 minutes, combined with breathing the smoke and having it in my eyes, the other stresses of the battlefield, the heat of it all, etc, and I probably couldn't make it. Mix in normal Civil War era pre-battle conditions such as marching on foot, nutrition, sleeping on the ground, constant sickness and my prospects lower considerably.

I don't see any problem at all from normal shooting for 40 rounds of ammo. Again I'm not talking about the heat of battle which I have not experienced.

But you can shoot 40 rounds of ammo without any great stress. I did 30 non-stop while testing lube and stopped because there was no appreciable difference in loading after 30 rounds. I was not going for speed though.

I'm tempted now to go to the range and see how much ammo I can go through rapid-fire.

The musket was a junk weapon even with a mini-ball, but when you are arming tens of thousands that come from all walks of life it makes sense.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "junk weapon".

Steve

[Hawg]

The musket was a junk weapon even with a mini-ball, but when you are arming tens of thousands that come from all walks of life it makes sense.

Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are. My repro Enfield will tear hell out of a five gallon bucket at 300 yards.

[LeadZinger]

Agree with Hawg, it is hard to call an Enfield a junk weapon with a straight face. Certainly would not want to be standing in front of one when it went off!!

I seem to remember reading somewhere that during the CW it took fewer rounds fired to create a casualty than any war fought during the 20th century with "modern" weapons. The effectiveness of black powder muzzleloaders and the efficiency of the soldiers that used them is attested to by the over 600,000 casualties they created in a four year period.

Hawg - if you can hit a five gallon can at three hundred yards with a P53 Enfield, my hat is off to you. I can not even see 300 yards!!

[maillemaker]

I feel like I'm defending the position here that N-SSA shooting is like shooting in a Civil War battle, and I'm most definitely not.

I'm just saying, shooting 40 rounds consecutively is not going to break you physically.

But a typical Civil War soldier could not shoot 40 rounds consecutively, let alone 120.

The cartridge box only provides ready access to 20 rounds. After those are expended the soldier would have to stop and pull the tins from their cartridge box to access the two reserve arsenal packs, open them, and put the cartridges into the top of the tins. Then they could resume firing.

After 40 shots they would need a resupply unless they had some arsenal packs tucked away in a pocket or somewhere else.

Steve

[SIGSHR]

The P1853 Enfield, M1861 Springfield, the Brown Bess and Charleville were all state of the art in their day.

[B.L.E.]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that during the CW it took fewer rounds fired to create a casualty than any war fought during the 20th century with "modern" weapons. The effectiveness of black powder muzzleloaders and the efficiency of the soldiers that used them is attested to by the over 600,000 casualties they created in a four year period.

That's mostly because "spray and pray" wasn't an option back then, although the civil war equivelent of a modern machine gun nest was a battery of Napoleons shooting canister.

[SIGSHR]

60% of the deaths in the Civil War were due to disease. Their practices
of sanitation-Germ Theory ?-What's That? would turn our stomachs. The wounds inflicted by smoothbores and Minie balls were more horrendous, that big chunk of lead was just right for smashing bones and tearing muscle to shreds.

[gunslinger2000]

That's one reason why the loads in one of my house guns are blackpowder. An intruder isn't likely to survive to sue me. Gangrene is likely to get him if the shot doesn't. LOL. gunslinger

[Hawg]

Hawg - if you can hit a five gallon can at three hundred yards with a P53 Enfield, my hat is off to you. I can not even see 300 yards!

Honestly I don't know if I could do it now since my eyesight has deteriorated from diabetes and I couldn't hit it with every shot, just most of them. I put the can at the waters edge against the bank of a pond when the water was low so I could tell when I was hitting low but most misses were to the side. yeah, yeah, yeah I know about shooting at water but there's nothing behind it except trees.

[B.L.E.]

That's one reason why the loads in one of my house guns are blackpowder. An intruder isn't likely to survive to sue me. Gangrene is likely to get him if the shot doesn't. LOL. gunslinger

If anything, the fire and brimstone of a black powder explosion is likely to sterilize a bullet.
It's the 19th century medicine and sanitation that led to gangrene, not to mention that modern antibiotics were totally unknown.

[Jim Watson]

I am not too sure about the "sterile bullet" theory, but the target's clothes and skin certainly aren't. See references to Napoleonic wars officers putting on a clean silk shirt before battle. It gave them the best chance against wound fever.
Until antibiotics were well distributed after WWII, any penetrating wound would be life threatening. That is why the "mouseguns" were viable crime deterrents. Their "stopping power" was psychological, you did not want to be shot with anything. You might crush the idiot who popped you with a peashooter and then expire of peritonitis a few days later.

[Hellgate]

I have an old book that is a history of the Civil War printed in the late 1800s and it summarizes the casualties of each battle campaign. Let's say in one campaign 15,000 men were killed. There were 5000 dead from battle wounds, 5000 men listed as died from pneumonia and there'd be 5000 listed as died from diarrhea. It was pretty consistent that the causes of death were evenly distributed between battle, pneumonia, and diarrhea showing 2:1 disease being the most likely killer.

[maillemaker]

If anything, the fire and brimstone of a black powder explosion is likely to sterilize a bullet.

I seriously doubt this sterilization theory.

I routinely shoot bullets into my bullet bucket - a 5 gallon bucket full of chipped rubber mulch with a few sheets of sheet metal in the bottom of the bucket. This lets me recover and re-use the lead.

Recovered bullets are filthy and still have traces of lube on them, and they often end up with bits of the mulch pinched into the lead and melded into the bullet.

Period Lube was a 3:1 or 8:1 beeswax: tallow mixture, and these bullets had been packed in paper bundles and then crates for who knows how long in all kinds of weather.

Even if the bullet was sterile from a living organism point of view when it left the barrel, it was filthy with powder residue and lube, and when it hit you it took all that along with bits of dirty clothing and skin into the wound.

Steve

[TailGator]

There are photos in the medical library at the University of Florida of Civil War surgeons going about their grisly business with a lit cigar chomped between their teeth. Louis Pasteur was at first considered a bit eccentric with his ideas of microscopic things causing disease and infection. Even washing ones hands before surgery was considered at best silly, and at worst a waste of valuable time.

[Mike Irwin]

In amputation cases the pneumonia was often caused by pyemia, a particularly nasty staph infection that would quickly spread throughout the body, causing abscesses, particularly in the lungs.

Civil War sutures were often, due to field expediency, horse hair taken right from the mane or tail of a horse and not washed or sterilized.

[Mk VII]

The act of firing a bullet in no way sterilises it, and this has been proved by firing anthrax-contaminated bullets into animals (see Louis LaGarde, Gunshot Injuries [1916])

[shafter]

It's well known that soldiers in the Civil War would urinate or pour water from their canteens down the barrel of their musket. They would also use rocks or a nearby tree of fencepost to help force the round down the barrel. There were also plenty of soldiers who just dropped their rifle and picked up another. If a regiment was firing enough to completely foul their guns then there would almost always be plenty of rifles from dead and wounded.

[MJN77]

It's well known that soldiers in the Civil War would urinate or pour water from their canteens down the barrel of their musket.

Doubtful. Any kind of moisture in the barrel would wet the powder of the next load effectively leaving them armed with clubs. By all means, pee in your muzzle loader, load it up and try to fire it. Also, how many fellas do you think pulled out their "family parts" to pi$$ in/on their guns in the middle of a battle? Some might have poured canteen water on the outside of the barrel to cool them down during extended fights, but pouring water/urine into the barrel would be pretty stupid.

[Jo6pak]

Most of the discussion here has concerned the American Civil War. But the truth is that the CW was, in many senses, an anomaly when it comes to muzzleloaders in battle. It was one of those historic intersections of old tactics and new weapons.
It was the first major conflict in which the gun truly became the dominant weapon in the hands of the infantry.

Prior to the general issue of rifled-muskets and the minie ball, armies still adhered to age old tactics and fighting formations that would have been familiar to soldiers in the late 1600s.
So for most of the history of black powder, armies simply did not exchange long and repeated volleys of gunfire.

[Hawg]

Doubtful. Any kind of moisture in the barrel would wet the powder of the next load effectively leaving them armed with clubs. By all means, pee in your muzzle loader, load it up and try to fire it. Also, how many fellas do you think pulled out their "family parts" to pi$$ in/on their guns in the middle of a battle? Some might have poured canteen water on the outside of the barrel to cool them down during extended fights, but pouring water/urine into the barrel would be pretty stupid.

Not only that but methinks it would be difficult to pee down a barrel while lying down under fire.