Rifle vs. Muskets

[CBR]

Arn't all rifles much more powerful than muskets?

No they were in most cases weaker than muskets as they were of lower caliber. The rifling also meant more friction for the ball.


CBR

[Megas Methuselah]

I think he got confused between the earlier Napoleonic-era rifles, and the later ones(used in WW1, etc.).

[Fisherking]

It seems odd that the most truly effective military rifle of the time was so short lived.

The Ferguson breech loading rifle was superior in every regard to other small arms of the day but because of higher causalities in the unit, (due mostly to seeing more action than other units), the unit was disband and the rifles taken out of service.

No doubt a lucky thing for Washington and his troops…

Can you imagine 6 + rounds per minute and loading and firing prone where everyone else has to stand to load and are standing in massed ranks.

[Sheogorath]

It seems odd that the most truly effective military rifle of the time was so short lived.

The Ferguson breech loading rifle was superior in every regard to other small arms of the day but because of higher causalities in the unit, (due mostly to seeing more action than other units), the unit was disband and the rifles taken out of service.

No doubt a lucky thing for Washington and his troops…

Can you imagine 6 + rounds per minute and loading and firing prone where everyone else has to stand to load and are standing in massed ranks.

The only downside being a tendency to explode :P

[fenir]

No they were in most cases weaker than muskets as they were of lower caliber. The rifling also meant more friction for the ball.

CBR, oh, shame on you.


A lower calibre, hmmm I could name over 20 examples of this is wrong. This is why, as they went along, they could make the rounds smaller, but more effective, with greater killing ability. Hence today. the killing power of most arms is only 2/3 of the power 40 years ago.
The Baker rifle has a higher velocity than the Brown bess. ANd hence is a heavier weapon to handle the stress.

Arn't all rifles much more powerful than muskets?

by InsaneApache

No not all, but the baker rifle was indeed. A musket has good power initially, but wanes fast. Hence the effective range is under 60 yards. Maxium 80 Yards.
Where as the Baker Rifle could, and did kill at 600 Yards. It has to do, with the powder, the projectile, and the rifling. Couple this with a channeled muzzel velocity, and you get to understand the change.

However, after ~1860, yes, all rifles where more powerful than Muskets by a long margin.

This is why, amoung others, the reason for the change. Rifling makes the bullet more accurate. The weapon is more powerful. ANd breach loading, made it all easy.

To a large extent, the rifle was the one everyone wanted, but due to the longer reload time, and more difficult nature of manufacturing them, the musket was cheaper, by about 1/3 the price, than the rifle.
As the rifles in earlier times, eg: 1500's onwards, where used for hunting. because of their stopping power, and accuracy. And greater range. And hence the change.


Sincerely

fenir

[CBR]

Early rifleman generally came with their own civilian hunting rifle so I'm sure there were many different calibers in use. In America civilian calibers were from .40 .to .60.

Some calibers used in military rifles:

.62 and .65 for German mercs (Hesse-Kassel and Ansbach Jäger)
.64 for Danish M1769 and M1803
.58 for Prussian 1810 model
.59 for the Austrian "Deutsches Feld-Jäger Corps" in the Seven Years War
.59 and .61 for Norwegian M1755 and M1807 (no data on the M1711 but looks like ordinary short rifle)
.54 for Harper's Ferry Model 1803

I think one can see the general tendency in calibers used by 18th century armies. Some have short barrels and others are of medium length. The shorter it is, the easier to load but less velocity.

Smoothbore muskets used anywhere between .69 to .75 and even some .80+ in the early 18th century.

A spinning ball is more accurate but it does not help with its ballistic coefficient so it does not matter whether it is a rifle or smoothbore: a round ball lose velocity faster than modern spitzer type bullets. And rifles of this era used round balls.

According to the website a Baker rifle was supposed to use a 2 1/2 drams powder charge(one dram is about 27.5 grains) A Brown Bess apparently had 6-8 drams in its paper cartridge. Of course with more windage more energy would be lost with the Brown Bess. OTOH I found another website saying the Baker had a 4 dram charge and that might make more sense with the lighter bullet and shorter barrel.


CBR

[Sheogorath]

Powder loads varied based on distance, windage, and what kind of mood you were in at the time. Hence, the power of the rifle varied as well.

Naturally, you could magnum load your rifle and probably kill somebody at 600 yards. Of course, you risk your rifle exploding in your face, or winding up with a metallic banana.

With my own black powder rifle (which is, admittedly, a modern example) I typically load ~60 grains for a shot at 100 yards. This is, of course, for a target, on a range. I believe the recommended hunting load is ~100-120 grains. The maximum safe load (according to the manual) is 150 grains (which probably means its up around 200 grains).

Now, I'm willing to bet my Saturday Night Special has roughly the same performance as an 18th century rifle. I'm a decent shot, and can generally hit a target up to about 200 yards. Past that (using ball ammunition) its impossible to get a consistent grouping, even with a scope. Ball ammunition simply does not fly straight for that long a distance, even with a rifle. And this, mind you, is on a range, with minimal wind, and with me not getting shot at.

Regardless of the sheer awesomeness of British weapons (which it is historically proven were all forged by Zeus, could shoot lightning, and whose mere presence caused French children to cry), I'm fairly sure that they used the same kind of bullet as everybody else (the exception to that fact being that the French had their bullets forged by the Goddess of Liberty. And the Russians had theirs forged by Dionysus, hence, they were all crooked.) and there is an upper limit to the accuracy of a round ball, regardless of how long and amazingly powerful your weapon is.

Phallic meataphores aside (Freudian slip!), I would say that a marksman, who practiced every day of his life, could, if he were particularly lucky one day, hit a man at 300 yards, at most.
Accuracy would depend on a number of variables, powder load, wind, Brazilian butterflies from three weeks ago, that sort of thing. Luck being a not-insignificant factor.

Now, on the subject of rifle ammunition being smaller, it should be pointed out that the Baker rifle had a calibur of .62, I believe, while the Brown Bess musket had a calibur of .75. Simple enough, yes?

I believe the reasoning behind this would be that it would require exponentially more powder to move a .75 calibur ball down a rifled barrel than a smooth bore barrel. A lighter ball would mean less powder was required to give it the same acceleration. I would imagine that the muzzle velocity of both weapons was, roughly equal with the same load of powder.

But enough talk about balls. How are you, gentlemen?

[Fisherking]

The only downside being a tendency to explode :P

Sorry but I have to call BS on this one….

It is much more likely that it was a political decision on Howe’s part and the disturbance in tactics of the day…

The average infantryman was seen as little more than an animal who did as he was told and one could not allow him to decide when and what to fire at…

[Sheogorath]

Sorry but I have to call BS on this one….

It is much more likely that it was a political decision on Howe’s part and the disturbance in tactics of the day…

The average infantryman was seen as little more than an animal who did as he was told and one could not allow him to decide when and what to fire at…

That was hyperbole. An exaggeration, if you will, for the sake of humor.
However, as with most early breechloaders, they were rather fragile and tended to break a lot. They were also rather expensive as well.
Its basically the Yamato paradox. You can build one giant battleship or a thousand fighter planes. Or, in this case, 1 rifle or 50 muskets (rough guess, of course).

[Martok]

As informative as this thread is, it belongs more in the Monastery.