Evolution of firearms and length of weaponry.

K

Kimio

New member
I find it fascinating to study the development of firearms over the various eras since their invention.

What has intrigued me the most so far is the design of old black powder muskets. Some of these (many?) were quite long and heavy. Serving almost as much as pole based weaponry as they were firearms from what I can tell.

I'm still reading up on the older black powder rifles and the doctrines of the time, but I'm curious as to why the long barrels were necessary. Was it due to the amount of energy black powder generated necessitated the longer barrels to help stabilize the shot/mini balls they fired at the time? Was it due to the nature of warfare that required the users to be able to fend off an infantry charge (since muskets of the era took forever to reload?) maybe a little if not all of the above?

I remember watching documentaries and looking at pictures as a kid in elementary school, dozens of men, muskets in hand standing in line formation firing off their rifles.

Early firearms were not known to be accurate so from that point of view I can understand the tactic. Modern firearms from my understanding use longer barrels to help stabilize various rounds (depending on weight, caliber and a myriad amount of other things if I'm not mistaken)

I'm still working my google-fu skills, but figured this would be kind of a cool discussion to throw up here at the forums.
 
Interesting questions.
When soldiers fired in ranks, did the long barrels ensure that nobody was in front of the muzzle of a gun fired by someone in the rank behind? Sort of like a phalanx, with longer spears for those in back?
There may be something to the notion that the long musket, with long bayonet attached, could act as a makeshift pike (ground troops still having to deal with mounted troops?).
Up until the turn of the last Century, the U.S. Army generally issued both rifles and carbines, but with the adoption of the M1903, a single weapon with mid-length barrel replaced both the long rifle/musket and carbine.
 
Rick is thinking along the same lines that I am.

Once the bayonet was developed past the old "plug bayonet," I think the use of muskets as ersatz pole arms was seen as necessary and logical.

Probably the most highly refined application of that is the British Infantry Square.

I think in part it also had to do with the development of gunpowder. Early powders often required long barrels to give the bullet appreciable velocity. As powder manufacturing became more advanced, long barrels were no longer necessary, but were maintained in part because of their usefullness as pole arms when fighting in ranks.

Carbines were issued in the days of the muzzleloading musket, too, they were just called Musketoons. They were most frequently issued to cavalry troops.
 
The Brits issued some carbines length ( for the time) muzzle loading weapons; The 1861 Enfield .58 comes to mind.
 
I think it was a combination of 2 things.

1. With black powder, longer barrels meant more velocity. Couple that with a longer sight picture and you have a more accurate battle weapon.
2. The days of fighting with pikes weren't too far gone - battle plans still were formulated as if pikes were being used - and a bayonete mounted on a very long rifle could substitute for those pikes.
 
"With black powder, longer barrels meant more velocity."

To a degree yes, but remember, black powder is not progressive burning. It burns quickly, and from there the pressure begins to drop.

It's likely that with the old muskets that the barrels were far longer than they really needed to be.

An interesting tidbit along this line...

If you look at specifications for the old ships from the late 1800s, before the adoption of smokeless powder as a propellant for naval guns, you'll find that they are quite short.

They didn't need to be long, and in fact longer barrels actually reduced the velocity of the heavier shells.

Once smokeless powder came around, though, its progressive burning nature required that gun barrels lengthened considerably, sometimes by as much as a factor of 2 or 3.
 
Hmmm, I don't think anyone has yet hit on the need of longer barrels with black powder and why with smokeless, barrels became progressively shorter.

Also, no one has yet differentiated between smooth-bore musket and rifled barrels, such as in George Washington's time, as it related to accuracy.

Regarding bayonets, the military generally was a stodgy group prone to practice what it practiced when it practiced back when it practiced way, way back when.

In the same vein, think of why the U.S. Cavalry's 7th boxed up its sabers for posterity when it set out on a very famous campaign and why Bedford Forrest's cavalry a decade before dispensed with those "long knives."

I've got an eye on you folks. ;)
 
Length is important when you had to repel cavalry. Longer arm, longer reach with the bayonet. Like Mike said, length was not important as to power or accuracy. Until about the time of the F&I War in America, musket armed soldiers in the British Army were not trained in marksmanship. What for? They fired directed volleys. Volume of fire, not accuracy, broke the enemy's morale and made them ripe for the crushing bayonet charge (of course, this didn't work out well against the Red Man who didn't stand up to take a volley). Even after the F&I War, the British army lapsed into a period when marksmanship wasn't practiced anymore.

Second, consider the linear formation used by the militaries of the musket era. These had evolved from the earlier pike formations of the 15th Century. With muskets, you don't want the rear rank's muzzle next to the front rank's face. Men fought in formations up to three deep (until about the time of the Napoleonic era). Having a musket discharge near your face could result in blindness or deafness, either of which reduces the effectiveness of those front rank men.

ETA: The Germans found that the 30" was about maximum for a round ball rifle. Extra length didn't add to the rifle's accuracy but it did result in a longer sight radius (and hence more accurate placement of the sight).
 
The principal fighting weapon for infantry was the bayonet, not the rifle. A regiment would fire one, or two, volleys at close range and then advance at a measured pace to the enemy. Fortifications were carried with the bayonet, once breached.

An infantryman could clear or defend a 10-foot hemisphere with the bayonet.
 
As long as facing a charge by cavalry or infantry was a possibility the bayonet probably was more effective than the gun. Carbines were for cavalry and rear echelons. Once machine guns changed the game charges went by the wayside for the most part.
 
During the English Civil Wars the pikemen were mainly to protect the musketeers from the cavalry. By the time of the war of the Spanish Succession 1700-1714 the British infantry were armed only with muskets. There was some talk of reviving the pike during the American Revolution and War of 1812, but just talk.
By the time of the Boer War 1899-1902 cavalry charges against infantry had become suicidal, cavalry was used more as mounted and fast moving infantry so the British adopted the SMLE to arm both branches with the same rifle, with a longer bayonet for the infantry, we followed suit with the M1903.
Carbines, musketoons, "Stutzen" rifles in Austria-Hungary were issued to cavalry, artillery, support troops whose main function was to do something else.
 
The cavalry during the American Civil War learned to fight as mounted infantrymen. There were classic cavalry clashes; including a little known one on the third day of Gettysburg. However, the advent of the minie gun and later the breech loading rifle made cavalry charges obsolete (last one I know of was by the US Cav in the Philippines in 1941. They actually ran off the Japanese).

Speaking of Tercios with mixed musket and pikemen formations, here's a good depiction from the Spanish film, Alatriste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMEnBHef96c

Long live Gustavus Adolphus!
 
I think this discussion didn't start quite early enough in history. Many of the earliest gunpowder weapons actually had fairly short barrels but mounted on a long stock.

And beside the "repel cavalry with bayonet" the longer barrel makes a more effective club, up to a point, when in a general melee.
 
First gunners were matchlocked armed. They didn't have bayonets and hid behind the pikemen when the foe got too close.

The plug bayonet gave the gonne man the ability to fight cavalry and to protect themselves. The day of the pikemen was approaching an end. The socket bayonet was even a greater improvement as it allowed for quick change from musketry to cold steel.

As guns became more efficient, the density of infantry formations shrank. Some digression. In the days of the tercios, gunners would step forward, fire a volley and then fall back to reload. The next rank would replace them and fire their volley. This continued until the the enemy got too close and all the matchlocked armed soldiers had to hide behind their own friendly pikemen. As pikes fell from favor and firearms became more efficient, the rank of musketmen grew thinner.
 
"Many of the earliest gunpowder weapons actually had fairly short barrels but mounted on a long stock."

I suspect that had far more to do with the capabilities of barrel makers in the early days than anything else.
 
..older black powder rifles and the doctrines of the time, but I'm curious as to why the long barrels were necessary.
Click to expand...

The long barrels were necessary because for infantry combat, one fought with the entire weapon, not just its shot.

The advantages of better powder combustion and accuracy were secondary to the fact that once fired, the rifle or musket was simply a club until reloaded. The invention of the bayonet changed that. The improvement of the bayonet so the gun could be loaded and fired with the bayonet in place essentially set things in stone, until the invention of breechloaders and cartridges.

With a bayonet, your infantryman becomes a spearman or short pikeman, instead of a club man, once he has fired his shot.

The tactics of infantry warfare evolved around this for a few hundred years. A volley, perhaps two, rarely three, and then close with cold steel! Unless one side surrendered immediately or ran away, it ALWAYS came down to hand to hand combat. And 6 feet of reach with a sharp point or blade is very useful.

Now this is infantry fighting, not personal combat, skirmishing, or cavalry. Armies fought armies, and did so in a somewhat "gentlemanly" fashion, under the European system.

Individual soldiers with muskets weren't expected to aim precisely, indeed they could not with what they had. Unit commanders aimed the fire of the unit, (hence the ranks of volley fire), rather like a giant shotgun at the opposing unit.

Note that the arms for scouts, cavalry, and others who were not usually expected to go fight on foot, hand to hand in numbers, were usually shorter, and sometimes lacked bayonets as well.
 
In addition to the mentions of using the musket as a pike, I suspect that it was easier to load a musket quickly when the muzzle was just below eye level.
 
Hmmm, they used flint lock rifles during ship boarding actions as well if I'm not mistaken, the rope atop the navy hat tradition was born during this period if memory serves so that "sharp shooters" in the crows nest could identify friend from for while shooting from above. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

That said, it's interesting to see that even navy variants of black powder rifles were still quite long, despite some being navy "carbine" variants.
 
The British had a number of variations of their Brown Bess musket over the years...

The first, the Long Land Pattern, had a 46" barrel.

The next version, the Short Land Pattern, had a 42" barrel.

The India Pattern, as well as the New Land Pattern, both in use after 1797, had 39" barrels.

The Sea Service Pattern, for shipboard use by sailors and Marines, had a 37" barrel.

The shorty of the bunch was the Cavalry Carbine, with a 26" barrel.

The British Navy also issued the blunderbus, often with a swivel mount. Those also had quite short barrels, about 24" long.
 
Barrels shortened as technological improvements allowed rapid fire and more accurate fire.

I find it interesting that bayonet length increased in the later half of the 19th century while their use became more rare.
While I admire and have collected a few sword bayonets, they are ludicrous things in practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top