Topic: Why was small arms fire so ineffective in the 19th century?

Lavite · October 13th, 2009

"So, with these muskets any kind of Marksmanship was, well, overkill."

Most military service muskets (smooth bore) were fairly accurate for the period. Granted range was limited as the ball had spent it's energy by 100 yards, and effective range was really half that.

I love black powder firearms. I build them and hunt with them.

The major issue with marksmanship during this period was the expense to train with live ammunition. Nations allocated only a couple of dozen rounds of ammunition for each soldier to train with annually. That was typical up to 1900. Most training consisted of dry reloading drills.

With that little training, you couldn't achieve any really effective level of marksmanship.
........

Oh, both Sharps and Spencers were fielded in the U.S. military, Civil War and post-Civil War. Sharps were by far fielded in greater quantities, though.

October 13th, 2009
Lavite Optio	"So, with these muskets any kind of Marksmanship was, well, overkill." Most military service muskets (smooth bore) were fairly accurate for the period. Granted range was limited as the ball had spent it's energy by 100 yards, and effective range was really half that. I love black powder firearms. I build them and hunt with them. The major issue with marksmanship during this period was the expense to train with live ammunition. Nations allocated only a couple of dozen rounds of ammunition for each soldier to train with annually. That was typical up to 1900. Most training consisted of dry reloading drills. With that little training, you couldn't achieve any really effective level of marksmanship. ........ Oh, both Sharps and Spencers were fielded in the U.S. military, Civil War and post-Civil War. Sharps were by far fielded in greater quantities, though. Last edited by Lavite; October 13th, 2009 at 01:01..