Buck and Ball

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
I was watching the History Channel this morning and they had a History of the Gun show where they were discussing the history of the shotgun.

They said that the concept started in the first War for Independence when George Washington stressed the idea of loading Muskets with a .50 caliber ball AND some buck pellets behind it.

This idea carried over in the Seminole War in the 1840s.

Do they make any kind of shotgun shell with such a round and pellets? A .50 caliber (or close) bullet cavity along with a spread of pellets peppering someone.

As shotguns don't have any rifling (could they?!!) the ball wouldn't be as accurate as a ordinary rifle though
 
I recall seeing a ad for some exotic shotgun shells, and among them was a slug/6 ball 00 buck load. The slug alone was 1.3 oz. so it must have been a heavy kicking load.
 
Seems to me like a "worst of both worlds" compromise. I guess in the Revolutionary War they needed buck & ball to get hits at the 50-70?? yards they were shooting at. But for home defense, I cant see where a slug or ball would add to the performance of good buckshot. And for longer range, I don't see how the buck would improve the performance of a good slug.
 
Look around in shotgun news and on line, I had a catalog a few years past for a place that sold 37 mm gas / flare guns and associated ammo as well as all sorts of 12 ga rounds --- bird scare, big ball, flechett, rubber ball, bean bag, lock buster, two balls tied together with a cable, flares, many others -- was maybe a 12 page catalog --- can't remember the name for the life of me but they might well have had something like this, though the absense from the common marketplace suggests that it's of limited use as others have mentioned.
 
Look around in shotgun news and on line, I had a catalog a few years past for a place that sold 37 mm gas / flare guns and associated ammo as well as all sorts of 12 ga rounds --- bird scare, big ball, flechett, rubber ball, bean bag, lock buster, two balls tied together with a cable, flares, many others -- was maybe a 12 page catalog --- can't remember the name for the life of me but they might well have had something like this, though the absense from the common marketplace suggests that it's of limited use as others have mentioned.
 
Exactly --- though at those prices I'd have to see some reports from someon who has tested them before I pony up.
 
Buck and ball loads predate our War for Independence. Cromwell's Iron Brigade charged their matchlocks with "Divers Smalle Schotte and Pistole Balles" as well as near bore diameter projectiles.

They won.

B&B loads at Antietam in 1862 were used by the Irish Brigade in the old muskets issued them and gave Bloody Lane its monicker.

I don't see them much these days, but in my salad days SxS doubles with trimmed barrels were oft termed B&B guns. One barrel for a slug, one for buck. Good brush guns.

Instead of exotic ammo, try loading first a slug, then a buck load and double tap them into a target. Impressive.....
 
B & B

Buck and ball loads were indeed used in the Civil War. Just as you described. You must remember, during the Civil War they were using rifled mini ball rifles. They were also using Napoleanic tactics. That war was fought with smooth bore rifles. The rifled mini ball had a very accurate range of over 100 yds. A smooth bore rifle had a accurate range of a whole lot less. The opposing side would line up in sometimes less than 100yds and commence firing at one another. Remember they were not using smokeless powder. The field of battle would be so thick with smoke that you could sometimes see only the the other sides legs. With a buck and ball load you had a better chance of killing the enemy by guessing their position above the legs. 45,000 casulties at Antetiem. There were more Americans killed during that war than both ww1 and ww2 combined.
 
Durring our war for Independance most of the guns were smooth bore so throwing some shot in there with the ball may have increased the odds of hitting something at close range. However I have read about the mountain/woods men who came down to fight from time to time, (they seemed to make up their own rules about that) did have riffles with very long barrels. These guys were shooters and would often take, and make, shots at over 200 yards. The English were not used to shooters of that ablility and would often get plucked off one by one thinking they were out of range.
 
Last edited:
buck and ball

The modern equivalent (sort of) is loading alternating buckshot and slug shells in a pump (or auto) gun. Or one barrel of each in a double. This gives you an instant choice in the double, and in the pump, it is common to load the buckshot as the first round.

I say instant choice in a double, because I am one of those hidebound traditionalists who firmly believes a double barrel gun should have double triggers (and I won't own one that doesn't).
 
TriBall buckshot.

Dixie Slugs manufactures a unique buckshot load. The TriBall consists of three .60 caliber hard cast lead balls with buffer in a steel shot type wad. The 315 grain balls are loaded to 1150 fps from a 20 inch barrel and pattern best with tight turkey chokes.
 
The musket was of .75 caliber, smoothbore design, and weighed about 10 lbs. Soldiers were drilled constantly on formation firing and tactical movement, but only fired several times per year. The effectiveness of the musket was not impressive. Major George Hanger, who fought in the American Revolution, described it thusly:

"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored... will strike the figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded...at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him..."

The British soldier was expected to fire one shot upon command every fifteen seconds, although one every twenty to thirty seconds would be more realistic. Formation firing was designed to simply unleash a volume of projectiles in hopes of inflicting some casualties, but the 14-inch bayonet was the true determining factor on the battlefield. Robert Jackson, one-time inspector-general of army hospitals during the Revolution, wrote:

"Such explosions may intimidate by their noise: it is mere chance if they destroy by their impression... History furnishes proof that the battle is rarely gained by the scientific use of the musket: noise intimidates; platoon firing strikes only at random; the charge with the bayonet decides the question..."

Ammunition came in the form of rolled paper cartridges containing six or eight drams of powder, and a one ounce lead ball. Each end was sealed with pack thread. On loading, the rear end was bitten off and a priming charge of powder placed in the pan. The remaining powder was poured in the muzzle followed by the ball. The paper was then packed down by the ramrod as wadding. When fired an intense amount of smoke engulfed the firer.
 
Source for 1100 Tactical?

Editted because I apparently can't tell, when I have multiple threads open, which one is the new thread I'm trying to start. Doh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top