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

Early in the Civil War many unit's CS and US were armed with .69 caliber muskets of various manufacture. These were smoothbore bore weapons that fired a round known as buck and ball. The round consisted of one .69 ball and three buckshot. At close range these were devestating to the enemy. It effectively made the musket a shotgun and some sources claim effectiveness greater than the .58 caliber mini ball out to 200 yards.

In the Union Army the .69 was generally replaced by the Springfield 61 or 63 rifled musket by mid war although some units such as Meaghers Irish Brigade and some of the Iron Brigade chose to retain the .69's because of their effectiveness.
 
I wonder if shotguns with fewer but larger calibre shot would have been more effective at short range especially given the poor medical facilities of the day?
Yes & No, the traditional musket is really just a militarized shot gun. British Brown Bess was .75 cal & Charleville/Springfields were .69 with solid ball, buck-n-ball or buckshot. Effective range was very short. The Civil War rifles,Springfields were .58 & Enfields .577, had a much longer range, a good 100-200 yards in combat & much longer on the rifle range. The smoothbores just couldn't stand up to the rifles in a general engagement. A lot of smoothbores were used through the War. At Gettysburg the Union men holding the middle had time to gather & load 3 or 4 smoothbores per man & used them to good effect when "Pickett's Charge" got to short range. The men in a number of regts fired a musket & dropped it to fire the next, 3-4 rapid shots was devestating,but such senarios don't often happen.
As the War went on & rifles became more common, vs 1861 & early 62, the rtange of engagement increased, as did diging in, building breastworks & laying down & spreading out. The Heavy Artillery Regts commited as infantry in '64 suffered huge losses because they used tactics that hadn't been changed in the books to match the new firepower available by then.
When the Irish Brigade commander was replaced the unit turned in the pumpkin slingers for more effective rifles.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that their effective range in the hands of the average solider was about the same but their accuracy was lower than that of the Springfield or Enfield at about any range due to the .69's being a smooth bore. That would be the reason for the buck and ball load it gave a higher hit probability. Fullers book The Rifled Musket gave comparisons of the Mini vs a Buck and ball round that showed out to 200 yards buck and ball was more effective your only putting a .58 at that range as effective. .58 (.577) was effective at much longer ranges than 100 to 200 yards when in the hands of an accomplished rifle man, but most troops weren't accomplished riflemen, hence the multi-projo .69 caliber was more effective but less accurate at distance .

BTW: Thomas Meagher was not replaced as commander of the Irish Brigade, he resigned when the commanding general Army of the Potomac refused him leave to raise replacements in New York after Chancellorsville, by this time Meaghers brigade had been so mauled it was down to a few hundred combat effectives. At this point after Meaghers resignation the Irish Brigade Col Kelly took command.

Meagher later returned to service in the Army of the Cumberland commanding the Etowah and then commanded a Division in the Army of the Ohio.
 
I'd argue that their effective range in the hands of the average solider was about the same but their accuracy was lower than that of the Springfield or Enfield at about any range due to the .69's being a smooth bore. That would be the reason for the buck and ball load it gave a higher hit probability. Fullers book The Rifled Musket gave comparisons of the Mini vs a Buck and ball round that showed out to 200 yards buck and ball was more effective your only putting a .58 at that range as effective. .58 (.577) was effective at much longer ranges than 100 to 200 yards when in the hands of an accomplished rifle man, but most troops weren't accomplished riflemen, hence the multi-projo .69 caliber was more effective but less accurate at distance .

BTW: Thomas Meagher was not replaced as commander of the Irish Brigade, he resigned when the commanding general Army of the Potomac refused him leave to raise replacements in New York after Chancellorsville, by this time Meaghers brigade had been so mauled it was down to a few hundred combat effectives. At this point after Meaghers resignation the Irish Brigade Col Kelly took command.

Meagher later returned to service in the Army of the Cumberland commanding the Etowah and then commanded a Division in the Army of the Ohio.
Meagher's insistance on retaining the pumpkin slingers is why the Brigade was so mauled. As a reaction to the rifles, engagment range opened up, vs early in the War, in actions were they were firing @ each other rather than an assault into the other sides lines.
 
Meaghers retention of the .69's had little to do with the causalties incurred. The assault on the Stone Wall at Maryes Hieghts in Fredicksburg, that long walk across the field into the fire that 24th Georgia of Cobbs Brigade (also made up of a good portion of Irish) was pouring down from behind the wall. Bloody Lane at Antietam, the Wheatfield, Chancellorsville always with the mission to close on a position would have mauled any unit so assigned regardless of whether they were armed with.69's or .58's.

IMHO blaming retention of the.69 and in effect saying if they had adopted the Springfield 1861 that it would have reduced casualties is speculation at it's finest , in fact the argument could be made taht given they were often leading the advance the .69's would have been more of boon than bust once the range was closed.
 
Found some stats
groups @ 50 yards
Enfield 3.75"
'63 Springfield 5.25"
'42 Springfield 12"
groups @ 100 yards
Enfield 7.5"
'63 10.25
'42 36"
firing @ 72"X72" @ 400 yards(15 rounds)
Enfield 13 rds
'63 7 rds
'42 0 rds
 
Found some stats
groups @ 50 yards
Enfield 3.75"
'63 Springfield 5.25"
'42 Springfield 12"
groups @ 100 yards
Enfield 7.5"
'63 10.25
'42 36"
firing @ 72"X72" @ 400 yards(15 rounds)
Enfield 13 rds
'63 7 rds
'42 0 rds

That's well and good, but your stats don't take into account alot of variables, hell I can shoot MOA with a scoped 10/22 if I have all day to make each shot.

Variables:

1. Training- Civil War troops were trained in volley fire with limited attention given to individual marksmanship.

2. Tactics- Tactics of the day for infantry were massed fire by rank with fire at will rarely given except when the stuff was really bad. That amounts to point in the general direction and bang one off.

3. Combat Conditions- After the first volley the enemy is most likely obscured by dense blackpowder smoke that only gets thicker. Thus picking a target is difficult. It is much harder to group rounds when your standing in a rank, mini balls flying past, people behind and beside you are dropping, sphereical, case and solid shot are bouncing thru the ranks. This is why the Civil War era soilders training was long on close order drill and forming files and ranks and loading, aimming, and firing by the numbers, it needed to be an automatic response to command.

That a rifled musket firing a mini ball is by nature more accurate than a smooth bore firing buck and ball is not in question. But a rifled musket firing one projo has a much greater miss ratio in the Civil War combat conditions than does the .69 firing a 4 projo buck and ball charge....by nature.
 
That's well and good, but your stats don't take into account alot of variables, hell I can shoot MOA with a scoped 10/22 if I have all day to make each shot.

Variables:

1. Training- Civil War troops were trained in volley fire with limited attention given to individual marksmanship.

2. Tactics- Tactics of the day for infantry were massed fire by rank with fire at will rarely given except when the stuff was really bad. That amounts to point in the general direction and bang one off.

3. Combat Conditions- After the first volley the enemy is most likely obscured by dense blackpowder smoke that only gets thicker. Thus picking a target is difficult. It is much harder to group rounds when your standing in a rank, mini balls flying past, people behind and beside you are dropping, sphereical, case and solid shot are bouncing thru the ranks. This is why the Civil War era soilders training was long on close order drill and forming files and ranks and loading, aimming, and firing by the numbers, it needed to be an automatic response to command.

That a rifled musket firing a mini ball is by nature more accurate than a smooth bore firing buck and ball is not in question. But a rifled musket firing one projo has a much greater miss ratio in the Civil War combat conditions than does the .69 firing a 4 projo buck and ball charge....by nature.
I'm rather well versed in all this, been Civil War reenacting since 1992. You are correct on a lot of what you've been saying, but as rifles replaced pumpkin slingers ranges opened up, & tactics changed to an extent, because of the increased lethality & range of the rifles.
 
I'm rather well versed in all this, been Civil War reenacting since 1992. You are correct on a lot of what you've been saying, but as rifles replaced pumpkin slingers ranges opened up, & tactics changed to an extent, because of the increased lethality & range of the rifles.

Reeancting huh.....wow!!! And as tactics changed and distances opened up the shot to hit ratio went down. Because individual marksman ship was not stressed volley fire was, hence the reason the fire was inaccurate.
 
Reeancting huh.....wow!!! And as tactics changed and distances opened up the shot to hit ratio went down. Because individual marksman ship was not stressed volley fire was, hence the reason the fire was inaccurate.
Yeah, I know, playing Army, but it does make one quite familiar with period tactics. A lot more guys on the CS side knew what to do when the "aim" order was given, but there was a rerason the rifles were aquired as fast as possible. Officers @ the time noted attacks in late 61 & early 62 that should have been sucsessfull(or less costly) had the defenders still been equiped with '42s.
 
Looking for something like this?

The_13th_Redneck wrote:
Actually I do believe such a weapon did exist (a revolver type rifle of sorts) but I don't know when it was introduced and just how popular or unpopular it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nock_gun
http://ageofsail.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/nock-volley-gun/

In case this was mentioned before, I apologize, didn't read the whole Thread yet.

Anyway, the disadvantage of such a gun is the long time it takes to reload it and AFAIK its even less accurate as the common smoothbore musket.

Where we come to the efficiency of the 19th century arms. Actually, to approch each other in lines and fire volleys is the result of 1. short range and 2nd dreadfull accuracy of the standard military musket. The thought was to compensate these disadvantages by volley fire. Aka, one of the 50 bullets probably will hit something.
Why didn't they use rifles? bacause they 1st where more expansive, 2nd took much more time to load and 3rd needed more training.

BTW, the OP mentioned numbers of wounded about 4 times the numbers of killed. Are there any numbers about how many of these wounded actually did survive? I would think not that many.
 
Mauser C96

You are talking about the 1896 Mauser often referred to as the “Broom handle" in 7.63 Mauser

As you can see by the Name of this pistol, it was introduced in 1896, quite some time after the american civil war.
Btw, this pistol was rejected by the german Army(s) even if some other countries introduced it into service. However, it was used in WWI by germans, to a far lesser extend than other pistols like the 08.
Spencer breech loaders have been available during the civil war, but havent been introduced for the Union Army untill after the war (I think some units bought them on their own).
 
I think the breechloader

later introduced into service for the us army was the sharps, not a spencer.

I'm not quite sure this is right, because it will take some time to look up for sources, but I did read the confederate Cavallry used (atleast sometimes) to sharge and shoot with shotguns, than retreat and come back to finish off who was still alive with Revolvers. But as I said, no sources right now so it could be a Myth as well.
 
Another thing about muskets

and accuracy, you can actually see in the movie "The Patriot). One of the really FEW historical accurate things in that one :).
The guys ready to fight a volley just aim at the direction of the foe, than turn the had looking about 90 degrees aside before firing.
So, with these muskets any kind of Marksmanship was, well, overkill.
 
"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:
"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.
Sharps & spencers were the primary purchased Cavalry arm 1863-65. Both rapidly phased out after the War in favor of the trapdoor Springfield, espicially after centerfire ammo became standard.
 
Does anyone have any information on projectile velocities vs range for a range of firearms up to present day?

M1822 Springfield .69 Cal 130 gr powder 412 gr round ball MV 1500fps 100 yds 1014 500 yds 386 1,000 191FPS
M1842 Rifled Musket .69 Cal 70 gr powder 740 gr minie ball MV 954 100 yds 872 500 yds 653 1,000 yds 474FPS
M1855 rifle .58 cal 60 gr powder 505 gr minie MV 1,005 100 yds 907 500yds 667 1,000 yds 478

300 Win. Mag 180 gr bullet MV 3070 1,000 yds 1478
50/70 450gr MV 1260 1,000 yds 670
45/70-405 MV 1318 1,000 yds 696
45/100-550 sharps MV 1360 1,000 yds 789
44/90-520 Sharps MV 1270 1,000 yds 783

Penetration of white oak planks
.69 smoothbore musket 100 yards=1" 200 yds =.55" 300yds dent
M1817 .54 rifle 100 yds=.94" 200 yds=.29" 300yds=.20"
Hall Rifle .64 Cal 100 yds=.34" 200 yds=0
 
I think I have seen this mentioned before in the thread but cannot find it anymore, but IMHO the smoke after the first volleys was the big show stopper: You cannot hit what you cannot see, so massed directional volleys and also - as regiments were identified and valued for thier standing power - bright uniforms to indicate your formation and show you "stood" your regiments fame were the measure.

FWIW;

Rattler
 
I think I have seen this mentioned before in the thread but cannot find it anymore, but IMHO the smoke after the first volleys was the big show stopper: You cannot hit what you cannot see, so massed directional volleys and also - as regiments were identified and valued for thier standing power - bright uniforms to indicate your formation and show you "stood" your regiments fame were the measure.

FWIW;

Rattler
Battle Flags played a key role in maintaining unit alignment in the smoke(from artillery also) & made a good aim point for the other side.
 
Back
Top