The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat (Subtitle: Reality and Myth)
by Earl J. Hess and published by University Press of Kansas.

The overall premise of this book is that the rifle musket had no real effect on the results of Civil War battles. He points out, quite correctly, that most fighting took place well within the range of the smooth bore weapons formally used by infantry. According to Mr. Hess' documentation, ranges increased, on average, to about 100 yards, versus 65 yards during earlier conflicts. Mr. Hess credits this small increase in range, while the soldiers were armed with weapons, whose effective range was 300 to 500 yards, to two major problems. Lack of training and the inability to see their targets. The soldiers were not trained to estimate range and the usual Civil War battlefield did not offer the opportunity for long eange shooting.

Mr. Hess did credit the rifle musket for the increase in skirmishing and sniping. In his opinion, while making the battlefield a more dangerous and unpleasant place; skirmishing and sniping did not effect the overall results of Civil War battles.  

Something I never thought of, but the Civil War was the only war, in history, where most of the soldiers were armed with muzzle loading rifles. These weapons didn't become common until 1855 and were obsolete by 1870.

I would strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in Civil War weapons or tactics.

The book makes some sense along with the effect of the minie ball producing such damage to bone and flesh.

Marc,

Even with modern, flat shooting, military rifles. The maxium effective range is only about 300 meters. That's about as far as the human eye can clearly pick out a target, using iron sights.

In World War Two and Korea, the average range was only about 100 yards. In Viet Nam, the ranges were even shorter.

Smoke, dust, natural obstructions, and the average enemy's natural desire not to get shot; all limit effective ranges on the battlefield. We all know how much smoke is produced during a reenactment. Imagine that multiplied by a factor of ten! When you add the rainbow trajectory of rifle muskets; it's hard for me to believe that long range shooting did anything except steady the troops doing that shooting. (Doing something is usually better than doing nothing!)    

Something that wasn't mentioned in the book; but I wonder how much the fouling of rifled weapons slowed down the rate of fire. I wonder if anyone has done experiments on loading rifles versus smooth bores after many shots?  

Quote :

Bill wrote : Marc, Even with modern, flat shooting, military rifles. The maxium effective range is only about 300 meters. That's about as far as the human eye can clearly pick out a target, using iron sights. In World War Two and Korea, the average range was only about 100 yards. In Viet Nam, the ranges were even shorter. Smoke, dust, natural obstructions, and the average enemy's natural desire not to get shot; all limit effective ranges on the battlefield. We all know how much smoke is produced during a reenactment. Imagine that multiplied by a factor of ten! When you add the rainbow trajectory of rifle muskets; it's hard for me to believe that long range shooting did anything except steady the troops doing that shooting. (Doing something is usually better than doing nothing!)     Something that wasn't mentioned in the book; but I wonder how much the fouling of rifled weapons slowed down the rate of fire. I wonder if anyone has done experiments on loading rifles versus smooth bores after many shots?

Good point Bill... thats very interesting. Ya im sure that happened alot with rifles at times, maybe the powder was to moist or the battle was in a damp wet climate...thus effecting how many shots you could get off. Did the book happen to mention anything about the effects of repeating rifles (henry, spencer) just wondering?  so much great weapon and war technology came during the war!

Quote :

dave wellerding wrote :   Good point Bill... thats very interesting. Ya im sure that happened alot with rifles at times, maybe the powder was to moist or the battle was in a damp wet climate...thus effecting how many shots you could get off. Did the book happen to mention anything about the effects of repeating rifles (henry, spencer) just wondering?  so much great weapon and war technology came during the war!

Dave,

Damp black powder is another issue. The gun don't go BOOM and that slows shooting down to zip!

The real problem is that every shot from a black powder rifle deposits more fouling in the rifle barrel. Each round is a little tougher, than the last, to get seated. After a while, you're holding the rifle between your knees and pushing the rammer down with two hands.

A smooth bore will catch less fouling and the round ball has more windage. I would assume it would be easier to load over many rounds, but don't know that anybody has actually done the testing.  

As for Mr Hess's book: I too have heard it's pretty illuminating on several points and is an excellant resource. Did he mention that the rifle had more of an impact helping defenders in CW battles? I've heard that stated too but am not sure if Hess mentions it.

Wouldn’t you like to know what actual Civil War combat veterans’ opinions were regarding the ineffectiveness of their fire.

Quote :

Curtis Makamson wrote : Wouldn’t you like to know what actual Civil War combat veterans’ opinions were regarding the ineffectiveness of their fire.

Curtis,

I'd guess Civil War combat veterans thought the fire was very effective. When one is being shot at, the number of hits becomes far more important than the number of misses!