Not 300m @tarazkp, not with any sort of accuracy anyway. They were not always rifled barrels and the ones that were didn't have a fast twist-rate. Accuracy was terrible compared to these days. That's why they lined up in close order and fired as a body of men, shoulder to shoulder, rather than as individuals. They would generally march towards each other in file and stop some 50-100m away from the opposing force then load and fire sending what essentially was a wall of lead balls into the opposing ranks. The amount of smoke generated was another reason the ranks would need to be so close or they would not be able to see the enemy. There were sharpshooters also, but nothing like what we have now.
There was reasonable accuracy to some degree but only by the best shooters and not out to 300m. This is partly because the rifled and non-rifled muzzleloader had a comparatively low muzzle velocity. My rifles are pushing out some 3000fps from a 1 in 10 twist rate and the loss of speed is mitigated by lower drag levels of the projectile and fast spin-rate, the muzzleloader was some 2100fps, give or take and the speed would fall away quickly exacerbating the inaccuracies.
They cut ragged gaping wounds into men though and even being hit in the arm or leg could be a death sentence as medical practices, and cleanliness was of a poor quality. That's if you didn't bleed out on the battlefield. Certainly a brutal weapon.
I have fired one, and yes they are heavy. Loading and firing two accurate shots a minute would be difficult when being fired upon at the same time. In fact probably at anytime. In my bolt action rifles I could fire over 20-25 very accurate rounds in 1 minute out to over 1000m and with my hand guns...Well, so many more...I have 6 magazines of 10 rounds for each and will empty them in under 30-40 seconds. Accuracy would suffer though. A lot of rounds compared to two a minute.
The muzzleloader is great fun to fire and there are groups who keep their tradition alive. People even hunt with them still, dress up like Daniel Boone and all. I think it's cool.
It says 300 metres on Wikipedia, but I'm sure the guy today said 120. May have misheard. it's a pretty formidable piece of kit, 2 shots a minute if your'e a good musketeer. I honestly had no appreciation of how much there was to loading... difficult if you're advancing in a battle.
They had around 13 shots, then used the but as a blunt instrument apparently.
Back when violence was civilised, unlike our sneaky drone warfare today.
Not 300m @tarazkp, not with any sort of accuracy anyway. They were not always rifled barrels and the ones that were didn't have a fast twist-rate. Accuracy was terrible compared to these days. That's why they lined up in close order and fired as a body of men, shoulder to shoulder, rather than as individuals. They would generally march towards each other in file and stop some 50-100m away from the opposing force then load and fire sending what essentially was a wall of lead balls into the opposing ranks. The amount of smoke generated was another reason the ranks would need to be so close or they would not be able to see the enemy. There were sharpshooters also, but nothing like what we have now.
There was reasonable accuracy to some degree but only by the best shooters and not out to 300m. This is partly because the rifled and non-rifled muzzleloader had a comparatively low muzzle velocity. My rifles are pushing out some 3000fps from a 1 in 10 twist rate and the loss of speed is mitigated by lower drag levels of the projectile and fast spin-rate, the muzzleloader was some 2100fps, give or take and the speed would fall away quickly exacerbating the inaccuracies.
They cut ragged gaping wounds into men though and even being hit in the arm or leg could be a death sentence as medical practices, and cleanliness was of a poor quality. That's if you didn't bleed out on the battlefield. Certainly a brutal weapon.
I have fired one, and yes they are heavy. Loading and firing two accurate shots a minute would be difficult when being fired upon at the same time. In fact probably at anytime. In my bolt action rifles I could fire over 20-25 very accurate rounds in 1 minute out to over 1000m and with my hand guns...Well, so many more...I have 6 magazines of 10 rounds for each and will empty them in under 30-40 seconds. Accuracy would suffer though. A lot of rounds compared to two a minute.
The muzzleloader is great fun to fire and there are groups who keep their tradition alive. People even hunt with them still, dress up like Daniel Boone and all. I think it's cool.
Great to hear from such an enthusiast, the guy who did the micro teach was clearly very enthusiastic and it was infectious, certainly interested me!
Nice to hear his version of how far they went (120m) was correct, rather than the wiki version. Unless the variation is due to early and later rifles?
Love the whole Daniel Boone idea.
It says 300 metres on Wikipedia, but I'm sure the guy today said 120. May have misheard. it's a pretty formidable piece of kit, 2 shots a minute if your'e a good musketeer. I honestly had no appreciation of how much there was to loading... difficult if you're advancing in a battle.
They had around 13 shots, then used the but as a blunt instrument apparently.
Back when violence was civilised, unlike our sneaky drone warfare today.
I would say there is a fair swing in accuracy but, accidentaly getting hit with a musket ball wouldn't be fun either.
I think I know this girl