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