You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Performance of 16-18th century firearms
- Thread starter Oleg Volk
- Start date
Hi!
I think the best study on this subject was done by the "Grazer Zeughaus" here in Austria. Besides accuracy tests, they fired several old muskets and handguns against 15th and 17th century breast plates. I have not read the report but part of it is cited in "Bert S. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, Baltimore 1997". See if your library can get you this book- it's a very good start.
I think the best study on this subject was done by the "Grazer Zeughaus" here in Austria. Besides accuracy tests, they fired several old muskets and handguns against 15th and 17th century breast plates. I have not read the report but part of it is cited in "Bert S. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, Baltimore 1997". See if your library can get you this book- it's a very good start.
Munro Williams
New member
Oleg,
Get yourself a copy of Dixie Gun Work's mail order catalogue. The appendix is loaded with all kinds of information like that.
Great pictures, too.
Get yourself a copy of Dixie Gun Work's mail order catalogue. The appendix is loaded with all kinds of information like that.
Great pictures, too.
I can't imagine the smoothbore musket was good for much except volley fire.
Cooper thought you should have a friend stand facing you and back up until you could just barely see "the whites of his eyes" to get an idea of the maximum effective range of the smoothbore musket. Probably as good a method as any.
Cooper thought you should have a friend stand facing you and back up until you could just barely see "the whites of his eyes" to get an idea of the maximum effective range of the smoothbore musket. Probably as good a method as any.
I remember when the Arms of Styria (Austrian) came through a local museum. In the video which accompanied the exhibit, they showed that the dent in the cuirass was part of the proofing. If a cuirass failed, it was sent back. Unfortunately, the video did not report what size ball, distance and powder charge.
JimWolford
New member
Oleg;
OK, now you are in my territory <s>
Range and effectiveness- the simplest comparison I can give you is this.
The British Brown Bess musket, which was the most effective military weapon of its day, has a range and accuracy that is very comparable to a modern 12 ga shotgun firing slug loads.
The troops were issued undersized ball to facilitate loading when the bore got fouled, as in an extended firefight, usually about one or two gauge sizes smaller than the actual bore size.
That coupled with the fact that the Brown Bess didn't have a rear sight, makes the comparison with modern shotguns even more valid.
It was generally conceded by tacticians of the time that a lone man standing erect and standing still at ranges of over 100 yards was reasonably safe against a single armed man.
The velocity of modern shotgun slugs is quite close to a full charged musket also. So anything you can shoot thru with a slug, is vulnerable to a Brown Bess also, I have not actually fired one at antique breastplates, etc. as they are too valuable.
There are plenty of chunks of plate armor hanging in the Tower of London. the ones that were made as firearms were coming into use have been "proofed" by firing at them with some kind of a contemporary gun, the dent was left in the armor as "proof" to the prospective purchaser that the outfit would indeed stop a bullet.
That said, firearms made armored knights obsolete in very short order, so I guess it was really "no contest"
As to calibers and bullet weights, they were all over the charts, however "more is better" seemed to be the rule.
The Brown Bess was very close to todays 12 gauge in bore size, and the undersize ball that was issued was close to a 16 ga- or one ounce in weight.
The British standard Navy pistol was a 20 gauge, as was the carbines issued to cavalry. They were actually about 62 caliber and used a 60 caliber ball, the weight of which escapes me at the moment.
Black powder velocities were also very close to modern shotguns, figure 1,200 fps- tops- with heavy charges.
The pistols got about half that, but 300 grains of lead will make a very serious wound at 600 fps.
Jim
------------------
Lay up some blackpowder and flints
The rest we can build, if need be
OK, now you are in my territory <s>
Range and effectiveness- the simplest comparison I can give you is this.
The British Brown Bess musket, which was the most effective military weapon of its day, has a range and accuracy that is very comparable to a modern 12 ga shotgun firing slug loads.
The troops were issued undersized ball to facilitate loading when the bore got fouled, as in an extended firefight, usually about one or two gauge sizes smaller than the actual bore size.
That coupled with the fact that the Brown Bess didn't have a rear sight, makes the comparison with modern shotguns even more valid.
It was generally conceded by tacticians of the time that a lone man standing erect and standing still at ranges of over 100 yards was reasonably safe against a single armed man.
The velocity of modern shotgun slugs is quite close to a full charged musket also. So anything you can shoot thru with a slug, is vulnerable to a Brown Bess also, I have not actually fired one at antique breastplates, etc. as they are too valuable.
There are plenty of chunks of plate armor hanging in the Tower of London. the ones that were made as firearms were coming into use have been "proofed" by firing at them with some kind of a contemporary gun, the dent was left in the armor as "proof" to the prospective purchaser that the outfit would indeed stop a bullet.
That said, firearms made armored knights obsolete in very short order, so I guess it was really "no contest"
As to calibers and bullet weights, they were all over the charts, however "more is better" seemed to be the rule.
The Brown Bess was very close to todays 12 gauge in bore size, and the undersize ball that was issued was close to a 16 ga- or one ounce in weight.
The British standard Navy pistol was a 20 gauge, as was the carbines issued to cavalry. They were actually about 62 caliber and used a 60 caliber ball, the weight of which escapes me at the moment.
Black powder velocities were also very close to modern shotguns, figure 1,200 fps- tops- with heavy charges.
The pistols got about half that, but 300 grains of lead will make a very serious wound at 600 fps.
Jim
------------------
Lay up some blackpowder and flints
The rest we can build, if need be
panzerfuehrer
New member
Being the proud owner of a 2d Model Brown Bess, I gotta comment.
Mine is a .75 cal, and flings a ball that is about .715, and weighs 545 gr. My load is typically 100gr of FFFg followed by wadded-up newspaper. I've made paper cartridges for it, but unless you are planning on shooting them up the same day, don't bother. My buddies with .50 Hawkens just LOVE to get me on a team shoot.
One writer comments that it did not have a rear sight - well, it doesn't have a front sight either. The musket was presented, not aimed - it relied on volume of fire to do the trick. That thing up there is really a bayonet lug, although I find that sighting along the left side of it does pretty well. The bayonet was what this thing was really good for after troops got to closing range. No amount of gunfire could repel a determined bayonet charge. The thought of this wicked "little" (about 18") triangular blade sticking me is somehow much worse than the thought of being smacked by a musket ball. Triangular wounds are very difficult to treat, because they don't heal well.
My twopence.
------------------
Panzerführer
Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die Säue.
Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't.
Mine is a .75 cal, and flings a ball that is about .715, and weighs 545 gr. My load is typically 100gr of FFFg followed by wadded-up newspaper. I've made paper cartridges for it, but unless you are planning on shooting them up the same day, don't bother. My buddies with .50 Hawkens just LOVE to get me on a team shoot.
One writer comments that it did not have a rear sight - well, it doesn't have a front sight either. The musket was presented, not aimed - it relied on volume of fire to do the trick. That thing up there is really a bayonet lug, although I find that sighting along the left side of it does pretty well. The bayonet was what this thing was really good for after troops got to closing range. No amount of gunfire could repel a determined bayonet charge. The thought of this wicked "little" (about 18") triangular blade sticking me is somehow much worse than the thought of being smacked by a musket ball. Triangular wounds are very difficult to treat, because they don't heal well.
My twopence.
------------------
Panzerführer
Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die Säue.
Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that don't.