Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Rifle vs. Muskets

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Member Member Oleander Ardens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    1,007

    Default Rifle vs. Muskets

    The porpuse of this thread is to collect informations about the differing properties of this main tools of war in the set timeframe of E:TW. Personally I think the balance betwen is crucial to gameplay, and therefore one to get right.

    I will start with this one:

    The musket in the Napoleonic War

    Very interesting too.:

    The Girandoni: a repeating Air rifle of the 18th century
    Last edited by Oleander Ardens; 10-25-2008 at 16:29.
    "Silent enim leges inter arma - For among arms, the laws fall mute"
    Cicero, Pro Milone

  2. #2
    Member Member Polemists's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In the Lou
    Posts
    1,213

    Default Re: Rifle vs. Muskets

    And here is some basic rifle knowledge ( I know wikipedia is not the be all end all of historic world but the overview is useful to show the difference between volley fire and sharpshooter weaponry early on.)

    Rifle

  3. #3
    The Dam Dog Senior Member Sheogorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,330

    Default Re: Rifle vs. Muskets

    From what I know, the main advantage of the musket over the rifle was speed. A rifle required a lot more strength and took more time to load, since you had to ram the ball down with those groves biting into it. Muskets you could just drop the ball down the barrel.
    I also believe a lot of rifles weren't fitted with bayonets, with riflemen typically getting some sort of hand weapon (sword, knife, axe) instead. Less effective against cavalry.
    Rifles also required more training, since aim was far more important. It is true that (close up) you did have to aim your musket somewhat, but since rifles tended to be quite a bit more accurate, you couldn't just point your gun in the enemies general direction and hope for a hit.
    Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Rifle vs. Muskets

    Yes the muskets were alot faster due to their barrels being smooth and thus able to be loaded quicker. The rifles had spiralling grooves running down them that made the ball spin and thus travel further and more accurately, but needed brute strength to load and were difficult to load from a prone position.

    They could also be wrapped in a small leather patch which made them grip the grooves better. Riflemen carried 'cartridges' of powder, the same as the rest of the army, but also a horn containing superior quality powder. If they had the opportunity to use this (i.e. at the start of a battle) the shot would be wickedly accurate, however the loading process could last up to 90 seconds/2 minutes and the muskets could have fired up to 6 times in this period.

    When standing toe to toe the muskets were by far the more useful, although from anywhere beyond 80 yards you would be lucky the hit the man you were aiming at, the idea was to have to many bullets flying some of them hit someone and you wore down the opposition.

    A rifles main advantage was to pick off officers, NCOs, etc from a distance so when the two lines came together they were weakened and leaderless.

    Basically the answer is they both have their uses depending on the situation. Regarding the bayonets, the British could attach a bayonet to the front of their rifle, but it also had a handle which allowed it to be used separately. The French didn't seem to like rifles as they were so slow to load.

    I think the rifle companies only came into being a while after the traditional 'redcoat' battalions and I'm not 100% sure on the dates so don't know how they'll fit into the ETW timeline. They may need to be researched.

  5. #5
    Member Member Polemists's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    In the Lou
    Posts
    1,213

    Default Re: Rifle vs. Muskets

    I assume muskets arn't that rare in this time frame but what about rifles?

    I mean if your fighting a band of rebels, bandits, revoultionaries, obviously they may have muskets but would they also be able to make/afford rifles?

  6. #6
    Hope guides me Senior Member Hosakawa Tito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Western New Yuck
    Posts
    7,914

    Default Re: Rifle vs. Muskets

    Rifles required much more frequent cleaning due to spent powder build-up in the bore that plugged the rifling grooves. No amount of brute strength can force a patched ball down a fouled barrel *I'm speaking from experience*. Smooth-bore muskets experienced the same problems but to a lesser degree. Manufacturing grooved rifle barrels was much more expensive than their smooth-bore counterparts. Uniformity of ammunition caliber size made the logistics of rifle ammunition resupply prohibitively expensive for large units of riflemen. Most early manufacturers of rifles were small specialty gunsmiths who also provided bullet molds unique for their individual rifles. The rifleman then had to cast his own ammo.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO