musket effective range

The Brown Bess, Charleville and other muskets of the period have no sights at all. The rifle … Perhaps if somebody does some shooting at 300 yards it will help clarify the discussion? I came across a letter in the 25 September 1776 edition of Story & Humphrey’s Pennsylvania Mercury in which the writer says, “they have suffered our men at Roxbury to throw up an intrenchment below the George tavern, and within musket shot of their last intrenchment.” To add support to that statement, Washington also says, “Our advanced Works and theirs are within Musket shot.” As far as I know, the American advanced works sat near the tavern but about 4-500 yards from the Brit advanced fleches. Plus, you have to account for the fact that GOEX is modern manufactured and is likely stronger than typical powder (especially typical military grade powder). What appears missing from the definition, although one assumes it is implicit, is that the shot is intended to hit the target. If the charts offered by Mike Willegal are correct, a musket fired level (“point blank”) from a parapet at the attacking soldiers in a defensive ditch 18-40 feet below would have a range of about 300-375 yards. In addition to addressing the second question, I wondered if any other writers claimed musket-shot to be 300 yards. I have nothing substantive to add. And that is clearly what Hanger commented on — not the greatest distance a ball could travel. The problem still lies with the differences between gunpowder two centuries apart. What’s New on the Online Library of the American Revolution. However, it is difficult to argue against primary source documentation and this statement has much from the period to support it. Presuming it’s more like 250 ft-lbs, the effective range shrinks to 75, 125 and 150 yards for those loadings. But for two factors, it would be easy to dismiss references to musket-shot being 300 yards—or even 240 yards—as merely an exaggeration or an effort to put the best light on the subject. The 18th century and present-day definition of point blank are essentially the same. A question: Does anybody have period documentation of the muzzle velocity of a land pattern musket? By effectiveness, I mean the probability of hitting a man-sized target (because we are talking about battle conditions) that you aim at. Your interpretation of the data is that a musket shot in the 18th century was considered to be 300 yards. Well, the discussion has gone pretty much as I expected–using modern experience(s) to debate the article. Do any of you shoot muskets with live ammo at targets or game? I’ve had my say. Each of those materials will perform differently in ballistics tests. It is important to note that while oblique fire would reduce that undefended area, all of the period writers commented that soldiers tended to fire directly to their front and that oblique fire proved ineffective. I do maintain and will prove…that no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common musket, by the person who aimed at him.”. That the faces of the bastions may be properly defended by the flanks, Stevin fixes the line of defence at 1000 Rhinland feet; Errard fixes it at 120 toifes; Chevalier de Ville fixes it at 180 geometrical paces, and Mr. Vauban to about 135 toifes.” The Minié ball had an expanding skirt which was intended to be used with rifled barrels, leading to what was called the rifled musket, which came into widespread use in the mid-19th century. What this debate needs is a couple of days in the field! Unless this is done, he argues, it is “dangerous if not impossible” for the soldiers in the main fort to fire over the heads of their comrades in the fort’s outermost defensive positions, because “it is known that the wind of the shot alone has killed the men stationed to defend them.” (See page 51 in Lochee’s original.) Velocity differences with respect to point blank range are covered in the present-day definition. We don’t know the muzzle velocity of the 1770’s. By the way, Lochee’s refinement–as with all the others–is the addition of comments regarding attention paid to loading. The point-blank range will vary with the firearm and its particular ballistic characteristics, as well as the target chosen. My last comment. Sorry for the delay in responding. Also, there are some problems with the ballistics calculator you cite. [citation needed] The Italian moscetto is a diminutive of mosca, a fly. Wayne – Forget Tim Murphy. What these men were saying was (paraphrased), “If you’re closer than 300 yards, you’re in some danger of getting killed by a musket ball. In a later posting, Rusty Smith added, “[t]he muzzle loading forum I belong to has members that have done some very interesting ballistic testing with a chronograph with his Brown Bess reproduction musket, and loaded with a 90 grain charge of 2F Goex powder and a .735 patched ball he was able to get 1635 fps at the muzzle.” This is a far greater velocity than the 1000 fps you mention. I’m not talking about how far it can throw a ball, but the distance of its effective accuracy. Nothing quite so pleasant as the smell of black powder in the morning…. Joan, Sorry for the very tardy reply. One is that this is for fortifications where the levelled barrel will be at some height above that at ground level. So, you deny the authenticity of numerous primary sources simply because you and a few other modern folks cannot replicate the result and cannot hit a target beyond a few score yards. Using hand-loads that are ballistically equivalent to the Buffalo Bore 180gr WFN/GC (HEAVY 357 MAG OUTDOORSMAN Pistol & Handgun Ammunition) at over 1900fps out of my Win 1892 clone, I have one-shot deer at out to 110m. That is a stretch. Based on my research on gunpowder used in the Revolution I do not think using modern “black powder” will give you the same results as to what the results were in the Revolutionary era. Effective at 300 yards? The point blank range with a musket ball fired at about 1000 fps to hit a six foot man anywhere from his head to his feet is closer than 150 yards. I have used the .44 mag interchangeably with the rifle and see very little difference in their effective range. But that does not matter for the definition of point blank, which seems to be the lynchpin of your article. The answer eventually appeared while researching an unrelated topic in Lewis Lochee’s Elements of Field Fortification. When someone says “musket shot is” and gives a distance, then that’s what it is. Realistically 300 yards wasn’t an operational reality very often. All bits of information need to be weighed and integrated to synthesize a strong interpretation. Even if the chance of being hit by the ball is remote there is still the danger of being hit. Bow hunters in tree stands have to be acutely aware of this, but people using firearms over a significant distance in hilly terrain also have to be cognizant of this effect. For me, its always been simply a qualitative expression meaning “close”– an expression like ‘by the skin of my teeth’ or a ‘hair’s breadth’. (I may have a look at the original sources to help clarify this discussion for myself.) [v] Even the French held the same view of musket capabilities. I have yet to make the ranges it is said a seasoned soldier would in theory be able to pull off. That means all musketry calculated today is nowhere near what it was in the 18th century. I agree with your statement, as I would think it would be most apparent in fresher recruits. Our work has been featured by the New York Times, TIME magazine, History Channel, Discovery Channel, Smithsonian, Mental Floss, NPR, and more. I am sure I speak for many others when I say this exchange has been very helpful. are missing the point of the article. Unfortunately, I confused that issue by introducing a present-day definition. Lochee’s first use of the term came as he described how to determine just such a zone in front of a salient point (an angle pointing away from a fortification). According to this source, https://books.google.com/books?id=cLZJAAAAYAAJ&dq=range%20of%20small%20arms%20musket&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q=range%20of%20small%20arms%20musket&f=false , point blank is 200 yards, and at an elevation of 30 degrees you can get 500 yards (using the post 1841 charge of a .65 caliber ball and 110 grains of powder) and the ball will pass through a 1-inch pine board. American made gunpowder was inferior to almost all European powders and that had a wide range of quality as well. And, the comment about not firing indicates that others had been firing. I probably should have said it’s easier and acceptable to place musket shot at between 250 and 300 yards. Exactly because of that British taking in account experience in Seven Years’ War, or what you call French and Indian Wars, had introduced rifleman companies, battalions and brigades. To top it off (and I think I mentioned this in a response to another article–Hugh’s?) Although, it seems to be at odds with “Lochee later refined the definition when he wrote, ‘the point blank of our firelocks, when attention is paid to the loading, is known to be about 300 yards. As for disproving the statement made by so many primary sources, get a period firelock and around 200 grains of period powder and go out in the field to conduct the test. I suspect that’s what happened in the case you cite. At over 50 or so yards hitting a target becomes as much a matter of luck as skill. Thing is, you’ve got to be careful about how you chrono black powder guns, because you might actually be measuring how fast the smoke is traveling, not how fast the bullet is moving. So the range of a musket varied depending on the quality of powder and that varied over the course of the war. In summary, the article says: “Period sources use the term ‘musket shot.’ Other period sources give this definition for musket shot, so this is what probably what people meant when they said ‘musket shot.'”. So several of Mike Barbieri’s statements seemed to call Hanger into doubt: “… I knew well the modern talk of the inaccuracies and poor range of the musket, so I assumed the term [musket shot] meant something like 50 to 100 yards,” “… it would seem a musket could deliver its ball much further than is typically thought today,” and “It is clear that 18th century musketry could be effective at 300 yards.”, Unfortunately, Mike Barbieri relies almost entirely upon historical sources about 18th century fortifications. Regardless I am better now to have a crystal clear description of MUSKET-SHOT and POINT-BLANK. Secondly, the distance becomes much more difficult to dismiss when one realizes it is used to design, build, and attack fortifications—the practical application of the notion. But of course, in this situation, the muskets are essentially small-caliber artillery, and the killing effect is from plunging fire on a mob of attackers well below. He never thought he’d hit Fraser…why should anyone else:) I don’t know when he said it, or where it was first printed (or even who he was!) Without looking back at the original, I will assume that…, Doing some research on the Revolution and I wonder why Delaware is not designated on the "Join or Die" snake? I suspect readers have moved on from this discussion as should I. My article on gunpowder should be hitting the Journal next week so we can discuss it there too. But in reality, most attempts at aimed fire beyond 50 yards became a spray and pray affair. The standard issue of the British army during Napoleonic Wars was a Baker rifle, it was considered normal when riflemen hit advancing French column at distance 200 – 250 yards, however active participants in Wellington campaign in the Peninsula, reported as something worth wonder, when adversary was hit by British rifleman at distances 300-350 yards.Introduction of the Minnie type rifles in mid 19the century didn’t improve significantly range, but significantly speed up loading of the rifle. The second incident is from the siege of Boston. This presumes that the musket is fired by a man standing on level ground and the musket is about 5′ above the ground. Lochee will comment for me. [ii] Lewis Lochee. It has high accuracy, but at the penalty of a long reload time (16 seconds). Although it seems to me that your July 15 article makes my point. Effective firing range: 100 to 400 yd (91 to 366 m) Maximum firing range: 500 to 700 yd (460 to 640 m) Feed system: Muzzle-loaded: Sights: Flip-up leaf sights Come 1873 centerfire cartridges advantages, like higher chamber pressure and the ability to be reloaded, came on the scene chambered in 44-40. Again we are not talking of individual aimed fire but volleys intended to produce a ‘beaten zone’ (similar to the effect of artillery case shot) through which an attacker must advance before being able to effectively return fire with his muskets. That being said, I don’t have a copy of “Elements of Fortification” and I’m curious how Lochee defines “point blank” in that work. The one thing is a maximum distance the bullet can travel, the other thing at what distance bullet retains lethality, and quite the different thing is aimed shot distance. Col. Hanger’s quotation comes from his Letter to Lord Castlereagh, published in London in 1808. Writers on siege warfare often commented that the engineers should first use their knowledge of how far shot would reach to determine those areas of the defensive position with the least protection and then begin the trenches to approach that point. The only way to make a musket ball go past 200 yards is to aim higher than normal, something average troops were not trained to do. I am not saying that they waited until 100 yards, for example, because the ball would not travel farther than that. When I do it for a .72 caliber ball with a muzzle velocity of 1000 fps, with the “sights” (such as they would be) regulated to hit dead on at 100 yards, the drop at 200 yards is 61 inches, or right about 5 feet, which is the height of the gun of an average man shooting from the standing position. Copper? A few weeks back there was a very learned piece in a high quality publication listed at: http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/, I think we could use a good debate piece to clarify the situation. And by the way, I’ve read With Zeal and Bayonets and many other references on tactics and strategy. As an example, the absolute maximum range of a Beretta M9 (aiming it up in the air like a mortar, and disregarding air resistance it should be aimed up at +45 degrees above the horizon) is 1,800 meters, while its effective range on a point target is just 50 meters. The smoothbore musket is accurate to maybe 50 yards when aimed. A musket ball can go much further than 300 yards as I’m sure you well know and any serious shooter knows. The terrain of that era was not the terrain of this era in that all kinds of obstacles were present with the main ones being trees. I’d welcome the opportunity for a group of us to do some field testing….but, not knowing exactly what a period musket’s load and performance data was we still would not have definitive answers. [v1, p340], Another says, “It was a maxim with the old king of Prussia, that young troops should begin to fire at two hundred yards distance; by which he said ‘they became animated, and enveloped with smoke, saw no danger, and rushed on like old soldiers.” [v2, p246]. It is distinct from the weapon's absolute maximum range, which is the furthest it can throw a projectile in accordance with the laws of physics, and is only normally used for large artillery guns. Good article. I am very experienced with similar weapons in real life and I find using the rifle in the game to be very … A very well-researched article, Michael. My comments have focused on the definition of point blank. As a musket shooter, in best conditions with the best loading, I can expect to hit a man size target usually at 100 yards and sometimes out to 150 yards. Similar backgrounds can be found for many of the others. If you want to quantify it, you might want to consider Lochee’s statement above. Weapons designed primarily for anti-aircraft use often have their AA Ceiling quoted, which is a measure of the maximum vertical range at which they can successfully engage a target. Hanger was also a peer, so the book and quotation might also be listed under his title, Baron Colraine. The one I cite in my article is from Thomas Simes, an infantry officer and there are a couple others that I chose not to use in the article. Most other folks have only a passing familiarity with it. I’m also curious if he defines “musket shot” (or some similar phrase) and gives a distance. Now if the musket is fired from a wall 20 feet above the ground the point blank range is 300 yards. I do not think I ever took a shot out to 300 yards with blackpower firearm. I’m sure you know muzzleloaders are short range firearms. I’m not sure how the idea that 18th century weapons were so ineffective gained currency, but it’s a myth worth dispelling. By elevating the muzzle even more the ball will travel farther (I know there’s a limit). I’ve been aware of the challenge of using primarily engineer writings since I first started looking into the question. However, at the same battle on the French left flank, the average effectiveness was about 5-1/2 percent per volley for both sides. I didn’t know how they made fire with flint and steel or cordage out of bark but I learned. In it he says, “Some of the enemy’s ships, & all their Gondola’s beat, & row’d up within musket shot of us.”[i] Reading other accounts of the battle did little to modify my assumption and I wanted a more definitive answer so I widened my search. In short, that experiment where the person got 1,600+ FPS isn’t the same as the field conditions found back then, with undersized balls that would quite easily slide down a clean bore (because you needed to be able to load with the bore fouled). As I explained the 18th century and present-day definitions say the same thing. Further, our repro firelocks are equally different–most smaller and lighter than originals as well as made of different materials. As Jimmy Dick has pointed out, the powder is considerably different. For those with suppressors, the 1:7 twist favors the heavier subsonic rounds. Rifled muskets increased the effective range to about 200 or 300 yards, and a rifled musket could often hit a man-sized target up to 500 yards away. Just look at airplanes or cars for examples or, in fluid dynamics, the shape of ships. Until retirement I was a professional USGS research scientist for over 30 years. At 300 yards you can deny ground with fire. That’s with a tight-fitting patched ball (so more resistance). Perhaps powder had improved by then as the charge was 120 grains. Smith served as Inspector at the Royal Military Academy. is the figure. There is a great difference between the effective range of a musket and the extreme range at which the ball becomes spent by air resistance and the end of its flight to earth. Which would require that the soldiers be trained to aim over the heads of their targets at that range, something that the rank and file soldier simply wasn’t trained to do. Journal of the American Revolution is the leading source of knowledge about the American Revolution and Founding Era. Even at point-blank range, cartridges with about 200 ft-lbs of energy (such as .380 ACP and .38 Long Colt) are, again, known for not being reliably effective. They knew the best powder grainage, best load amount, best ball and patch combination… all of it and they knew it well enough to know exactly where they needed to point the firearm in whatever conditions were present, again like today’s snipers. So it no longer meets the definition of point blank. Those distances are pretty much what Mike Barbieri’s sources say is “musket-shot” distance for the purposes of planning a fortification. And present-day experience does bear on interpreting the past. That’s incorrect and I didn’t catch it to delete it before submitting post. Yes, a smoothbore could kill at that range. I understand this hill is about 300 yards away from the post. The rifle is but a part of the equation here. The point I addressed as I’ve explained is point-blank and effectiveness. In the 18th century, however, it served a key role in the military. I found this in the original source, Elements of Fortification 1780. The sources used are, for the era, suitably authoritative; George Smith was an instructor at the Royal Artillery Academy at Woolwich, where all sorts of ballistics experiments were conducted; Lewis Lochee was an instructor at a another military academy. According to several reputable 18th-century sources, “musket shot” was 250-300 yards–period. Hughes, CB CBE, Sarpedon 1974, 1997 covers the issue of the battlefield efficacy of smooth bore weaponry in excruciating detail, relying entirely on primary sources, mainly musket trials conducted c. 1800. I also build from scratch flintlock longrifles. We haven’t even factored in the differences that would have resulted in what powder was used to ignite the powder in the barrel. If one wants to debate that conclusion, then similar primary sources of information should be used. and, What happens when care is not taken during loading? Happily, Mr. Barbieri seems to have set us back down the right path. We have probably all encountered Col. George Hanger’s assertion that an aimed shot at the figure of a man has a good chance of hitting at 80 yards, and very little chance of striking at 150 yards. A .75″ Brown Bess was typically loaded with a .67″-.71″ ball, depending on manufacturer. At these ranges, volley fire is effective because some of the balls are bound to hit – and those that hit can be lethal. It makes sense to me that a fortifications engineer would plan defenses for the maximum range at which a musket was judged to at least start to be effective, particularly against an advancing enemy. Mon. Great article, Mike. A matchlock musket (a smoothbore) would have an effective range of maybe 50 yards against an individual person. How much weaker who knows and what velocity was generated by 160-235 grains is not known. This attitude has already been discussed in the earlier comments but, since you seem to have missed them, here are the salient points of the replies: “According to several reputable 18th-century sources, ‘musket shot’ was 250-300 yards–period. Though mathematically that is erroneous due to gravitational pull (though it is found to be much more accurate astoundingly compared with -45 degree downward fire from musketry). “150 toifes [300 yards], upon trial, will be found to exceed the point blank of our firelock which has even a barrel of 3 feet 8 inches in length, and carries a leaden ball of somewhat more than an ounce weight: when elevated 15 degrees, it carries from 7 to 800 toifes [1,400 to 1,600 yards]. To that point — has anyone read the article I cited in my original post? further they were typically shooting unpatched subsized balls to speed loading (the redcoats anyway), Your sources are wrong. For example, Lochee is not just some minor officer trying to make a name for himself by putting his thoughts in a book—he served as the head of England’s Royal Military Academy from 1770 to 1789. Richard. Great piece, Michael! Not to say he doesn’t know how to shoot a black powder rifle, however; when you think about it, it would have been a better test if they had used a subject who has lived, slept, ate, and pretty much married his firelock, much like our ancestors had. Mike, just to be as clear as I can since you keep coming back to the 300 yard range. https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Effective_range?oldid=91010. It is sometimes quoted misleadingly in PR materials: for example, this is the range figure used in claims that the FN P90 is "effective" against unarmored targets at a range of 400 meters. The real value of Hughes’ work, though, is his evaluation of the actual performance of smooth bore weaponry at various ranges under varying battlefield conditions in several battles of the Peninsular Campaign; I highly recommend it. Your comments about the term point blank range are the modern definition – note that in the article the author is using an 18th century definition with different interpretation. [xi] It is also used to help deal with undefended areas. I disagree regarding the open land argument inasmuchas many of the battlefields of the Revolution were wide open farmers fields, so much of Pennsylvania, NY, etc being cleared of timber by this point. The key word is effective. But, for our purposes we’ll use the average of 1000 feet per second (fps). But, just for fun, let’s assume it’s all true, and run it through the calculator. I did that in an attempt to clarify the language in the 18th century definition (which obviously is archaic). I’m pretty sure we’ve got Colonel George Hanger of the British Army to thank for our concept of musket inaccuracy – at least in part, anyway. 2'x2' is not very small, with 12x if the gun and shooter is capable you could shoot at 1500 yards. ; Simes, “Curtains,” 2:n.p. The point blank range for a musket is much less than 300 yards. A 1:8 twist works best with the light-weight supersonic rounds. Now THAT sounds like fun. I soon discovered that the phrase in the video comes from a letter written by Benedict Arnold (commander of the American fleet on Lake Champlain) to General Gates. I believe that it has more to do with the energy needed to be lethal at that range. So far, the only one that has been presented is Hanger’s and his comments are based on a one-on-one condition–something neither I nor the writers I explored claimed. [ix] For example, Thomas Simes, the author of a number of volumes on the military, placed “the ordinary range of a firelock” at 240 yards. Less? The book Firepower, by Major-General B.P. Of course, that brings up battlefield tactics and may further complicate the discussion. In this post I'm going to discuss the maximum effective range of the most common bullet weight and type, 55gr full metal jacket (FMJ). Against a massed formation like an infantry line, you could probably shoot out to 75-125 yards with a resonable chance of hitting a person (though not necessarily the person you were aiming at). Clearly we disagree and I and the rest of the commentators are talking past each other. I won’t discuss the effective distance of a muzzleloader when hunting. [vi] M. le Chevalier de Clairac, The Field Engineer, trans. I really hope this has been interesting to more than just those of us replying. Typically used for machine guns, this is the range at which a weapon lands 50% of shots inside an area of defined radius, hence the very high effective range figures for machine guns even compared to rifles firing the same caliber. The author of this particular piece has vast experience. Perhaps this is more related to engineering practices, where it’d make sense to have the maximum clear field of fire around your works? One thing age–and scores of reenactment battles–has given me is an ability to sense when something has gone beyond its audience’s attention span. [xi] J. Brindley. While looking for information on Thatcher’s reference, I did a bit of rummaging through William Moultrie’s Memoirs of the American Revolution and have come across a couple examples that, while they don’t specifically use the term “musket shot,” show that troops did open fire at more than a few dozen yards. p. 48 of the original manuscript. By elevating the muzzle the ball can go much farther than 300 yards, but that’s not its point blank range. Nevertheless, there are examples of non-engineer types who comment on musket-shot distance. It’s a given that air flow around an object has a significant effect on its travel. With so many differences between original and modern conditions, it’s even harder for me to deny the period’s claims. There are two Davis that signed the petition, on Page 3 Column 1. I do not doubt that a musket ball in the 18th century could have a range of 300 yards. Nothing wrong with the Ivory Tower. (See Lochee, Plates I, III, and XV.) At 300 yards (refer to the url) a musket ball fired at a muzzle velocity of 1000 fps has dropped about 20 feet. Especially when other sources from the same time period (like Colonel Hanger) dispute what those sources say. If one wants to debate that conclusion, then similar primary sources of information should be used. My final observation: The second is that there is a difference between accurate range (i.e. The 18th century definition apparently recognizes that bullets drop (it can’t fly in a straight line) and that the higher the velocity the less it will drop over a given distance (the less crooked its range). on the effective range. His first use of the term gave no detail but did provide hope of finding a firm definition so, with anticipatory vigor, I continued reading. I, too, find it hard to believe the distance for “musket shot” but, rather than deny several sources and say it’s not possible just ’cause we and our science has problems duplicating it today, I say we should try to figure out how they did it.

Bb Tracer Rounds, Organic Bakuchiol Oil, Star Piece Use Pokemon Sword, Red Wool Minecraft, Potato Puree Recipe For Baby, Makita Underhood Light, Invidia Q300 Wrx Hatch,