Rifle vs. Muskets

[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?

[Oleander Ardens]

Thanks for the information, CBR and Sheogorath:


The momentum of a 18th projectile leaving the barrel is largely determined by:

- The type, quality and quantitiy of the powder
- The weigth, form and size of the projectile
- The lenght of the barrel
- The friction of the barrel
- and how snuggly the fit

In the air it comes down to the properties of the projectile:

- How aerodynamic the form is
- The density of the material
- The size of it

If we put all together, than we will see something surprising. Given the great difference in weigth between the a .72 musket and a .58 rifle it makes good sense that seemingly the Brown Bess used at least 1/3 more powder per shoth than the Baker rifle. While rifle might still have a (slightly) higher muzzle velocity its ball looses momentum far faster the larger and heavier ball fired by a musket. Why that? Simple. Momentum is calculated by V*m, and is by far the best way to calculate the penetration power of a projectile. Both projectiles have due to their form a large drag, with both loosing velocity quite rapidly. The projectile of the rifle is faster and thus deaccelerates also more rapidly in the beginning, while the large ball of a musket has a larger drag coefficient. See here. Given the factor mass remains the same a Brown Bess hits far harder than a Baker rifle at around 500 yards.

With this background in very basic physics you can easily understand why the rifles in this timeframe used smaller "rounds" and less powder. The momentum achieved by this combination when fire out of a relative short barrel is certainly enough to kill or dangerously wound a deer or a man at ranges at least around 300m. Given that this range was a seriously testing the natural accuracy of the material at disposal of a rifleman there was no need to carry heavier rounds and more powder - more rounds and possible shots were far more important.

Why the muskets still used so large a calibre is beyond me, even if common sense seems to have slowly favored the introduction of smaller caliber muskets. Perhaps some hidden phallic competition between the rulers? My caliber is larger than your caliber?