Quote Originally Posted by SextusTheLewd
They did a test on the accuracy of civil war era muskets. Even from up close that thing is not very accurate at all. I'd say the human sized target was no more than 20m away. It took the "firearm expert" 4 or 5 shots to hit it. I forgot what show it was on, but I guess fired in mass and at a large densely packed formation, somebody is bound to get hit.
In the US Civil War most weapons were about .58 caliber and rifled. They fired mine' balls. At 12 years old, I fired a replica Cook & Brother carbine, .58 caliber using Mine' ball. The target was a tree branch about 5" diameter, about 50 yards away. We were hunting mistletoe (a holiday shooting tradition). I hit that branch not more than a few millimeters off dead center. That was the first time I ever fired that weapon as well... And that's not a full rifle, that was a shorter carbine. I know people with original Civil War rifles who still use them for hunting every year with Mine' ball. No accuracy issues there either.

Anyway, not only were earlier medieval/renaissance era matchlocks heavier than later muskets, they also had tighter bore-to-ball fitting. Like later early rifles, many had the shot hammered down into the bore. This translated into superior range and accuracy over the US Revolution era muskets... but slower firing speed. Given the relatively poor accuracy of most conscript shooters, along with the hesitance of humans in killing other humans. reduced range and accuracy was considered ok to sacrifice for faster speed. There weren't sights on many military weapons... they fired on formations, not individuals. The looser bore fitting also aided in mass production of muskets and ammunition allowing some margin in production. By that time there were steps up in lock mechanisms and priming, manufacturing, etc but accuracy of the common firearm had decreased in many cases. More specialized arms, and private arms, like early rifles and the sort, were superior in accuracy though.

Anyway, as for the energy figures I've seen posted, you have to remember the severe difference in penetration ability between hardened pointed steel and a soft round lead ball. Energy isn't all of the equation, you have to drive a soft piece of lead much, MUCH faster to penetrate hard metal objects. Hence some of the velocity disparity. Small differences in hardness make large differences in penetration. We had a damaged car door off of a Suzuki Samurai, and we tested a few pistols on it. We had a .380 ACP firing FMJ, 9mm firing FMJ, .38 Special firing RN lead +P, and a 10mm firing JHP. The only one that didn't penetrate the door was the .38 special. The slower, significantly lower energy and velocity bur similar caliber .380 did most of the time. The 9mm did all the time, in spite of being a slight bit lower in power than the .38. Of course the 10mm plowed through every single time as well as anything placed behind the door. The point being, the copper cladding on an FMJ makes the round somewhat harder than plain lead, and the hardness made the difference going through even low quality sheet metal. On a side note, firing a modern .38 Special to stop a charging late medieval plate covered knight is ill advised.

That all being said, the early firearms DID have better armor penetration, and superior horse killing power.

Anyway, weapon system advances do not always translate into direct battlefield advantages. And urbanization IS a big deal for longbows. Unless you can conjure quality yew staves out of thin air, you can't make longbows without decent tracts of forest. Importing yew from the continent is not logistically sound and gets expensive. Longbows wear out, and keeping a longbowman in training with the things takes more yew... A firearm, even the early ones, lasts as long as it is decently cared for and someone doesn't pack too much or too tight powder in it.

As for industry, my reference wasn't to assembly lines per se, but to act like production didn't happen back then is silly. Even samurai swords, those wonderful pieces of custom craftsmanship, were often the result of work from a half dozen or more people. The blade, tsuba, fittings, etc were all usually different artisans, and the final polishing and sharpening was often a specialist as well. The same holds true for early firearms... while you might have a gunsmith set up production and teach each stage what to do (why they were so well paid) production could involve lots of people. People making barrels, other people making locks, and yet more people making stocks. While not a production line as we currently understand it, it offers many of the benefits and was a form of early industrialization. Production was rarely a matter of just one guy sitting around going through all the stages. Even small shops had apprentices doing grunt work.

And the english were fielding firearms and longbows together for quite a long time. Better part of a century. That speaks to each having separate advantages on the battlefield. In such cases where systems acted as contemporaries for long periods of time, it usually isn't there merits of vices versus each other that led to the abandonment of one or the other, but instead factors outside their direct comparison.