"When was the first use of buck-and-ball cartridges?" Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century 19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
|
zippyfusenet | 05 May 2013 8:53 a.m. PST |
Buck-and-ball is an ammunition load for a smooth-bore military musket. It comprises a paper cartridge that contains a charge of black powder, a one ounce musket ball and two or three buckshot. Buck-and-ball is a distinctively American military load. I have never heard of its use by civilians, or by any other army. Has anyone here heard of buck-and-ball being used by others than American soldiers? Last use of buck-and-ball was probably during the American Civil War, the last time smooth-bore muskets were used on a large scale by American armies. I've never heard of buck-and-ball cartridges for the lever or pump action shotguns that the US Army and Marines have sometimes used in combat. Can you get commercial buck-and-ball for a pump shotgun? Why would you use it? Some authorities tell me that buck-and-ball was not effective enough to make it worth the trouble. Seems to me that 2 or 3 buckshot + ball would be more devastating than plain ball, when fired in volleys at close range. It would give me at least a morale boost to have buck-and-ball rounds, vs. plain ball. When and where was buck-and-ball introduced? I have read of its use in the American Revolution, but not before. Supposedly the Americans used buck-and-ball and the British did not. Is that true? Was buck-and-ball used earlier than the AmRev? Say, in the French and Indian Wars? Did Americans use it first, or did someone else? Military flintlock muskets had been in use for 100 years by the time of the AmRev, and matchlocks for much longer. I think I've read of pirates and other early-modern adventurers putting a few loose swanshot into their muskets to increase the deadliness of a load. Who would do this, and when did it start? (My guess would be, anyone who had some spare swanshot, as soon as people started shooting muskets at each other.) I suppose buck-and-ball cartridges couldn't have been used before paper cartridges were invented. I think that was late 17th century Europe. Is that true? What genius of destruction first thought to wrap up three buckshot with the ball and a charge of powder in a paper cartridge? Um. I'm thinking about modelling the effect of bnb in the fire CRT of a set of black powder wargame rules. That's why I'm pondering the subject so deeply. I wonder what I can learn from reading about engagements where bnb was used. |
vaughan | 05 May 2013 11:46 a.m. PST |
I can't answer your question, however here is a fascinating image of a musket recovered from a ship wreck: link |
jdginaz | 05 May 2013 1:25 p.m. PST |
I've never heard of it's use before the AWI but that doesn't mean much, so I guess I'm not much help on that question. But on the other question it looks like Winchester is bring buck & ball back with a new shotgun load, link |
Supercilius Maximus | 05 May 2013 1:40 p.m. PST |
1) It was also known as "swan shot" and may have been known as such in Great Britain (and possibly also Ireland) prior to the AWI; this also suggests it was known to civilian shooters as well as the military. 2) Sumter was shot at by a platoon of the 63rd Foot at a skirmish called Blackstocks using a similar type of ammo; he recorded his injuries and remarked that he had turned his left side away from the enemy to try to avoid being shot through the heart. |
vtsaogames | 05 May 2013 1:47 p.m. PST |
British regulars must have used buck and ball, because Sumter was wounded by 6 buckshot at Blackstock's farm. Tarleton's force was Legion cavalry and detachments from the 63rd and 71st foot. It may have been something they picked up late in the war. |
durnford1879 | 05 May 2013 3:22 p.m. PST |
I was under the impression that the British developed buck and ball in during the French and Indian war for use in the woods
I don't recall where but I've seen a Napoleonic ammunition shipment receipt that mentioned buck and ball that the author mistook as artillery ammunition. |
Lion in the Stars | 05 May 2013 3:25 p.m. PST |
Was going to say that you can find a rare few buck&ball loads for a shotgun, but jdginaz beat me to it. (Note that a 12-gauge is pretty much the same bore as the early Brown Bess: .72" or thereabouts) I'm not sold on the idea for personal defense (most personal defense shootings are too close for the spread to matter), but in a military use, yeah, that's going to leave a mark. |
spontoon | 05 May 2013 6:22 p.m. PST |
In the '70's or '80's a retired USMC officer did a study of the effectiveness of buck and ball. Shan't go into details here, unlessed asked!; but the upshot was that buck and ball was less effective than either all buckshot, or ball only. |
zippyfusenet | 07 May 2013 2:48 p.m. PST |
Thanx for the replies, guys. I was under the impression that the British developed buck and ball in during the French and Indian war for use in the woods
I don't recall where but I've seen a Napoleonic ammunition shipment receipt that mentioned buck and ball that the author mistook as artillery ammunition. durnford, I'd like to see your F&IW reference. So far we have Sumter's wounding to prove that the British used buck-and-ball in the AWI. It seems likely that some military used bnb in earlier times, but I have no specific cases. Also, when you write that you saw a 'Napoleonic' receipt, do you mean that it was French, or some other nationality? French use of bnb would be interesting. In the '70's or '80's a retired USMC officer did a study of the effectiveness of buck and ball. Shan't go into details here, unlessed asked!; but the upshot was that buck and ball was less effective than either all buckshot, or ball only. Spontoon, do you hve a link to that study? I think that's what I read, or some reference to it. But. It's totally counter-intuitive that buck-and-ball would be *less* effective than straight ball under any circumstances. How could you ever make the round *less* effective by adding buckshot to it? I could buy 'no more effective than ball, so not worth the extra cost'. But *less* effective than ball, even when potting away at long range? That's hard to understand. I'd like to see how this retired Marine made that conclusion. jdginaz, the modern shotgun ammunition is interesting. Lion, like you I don't see the advantage, neither for personal defense nor for hunting. Buck-and-ball was meant to increase the effectiveness of one group of soldiers in close order, firing volleys at another group of soldiers in close order. The only modern military I can think of who use shotguns on a large scale is the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, Mexico. The Mayan peasants use 12-gauge shotguns to hunt, and they took these weapons to war against the Federales. That was ballsy, although it ended badly for them. And to get to the point, the Zapatistas fight as skirmishing light infantry, not by delivering formed volleys, and the Federales don't form up either. So the benefit of buck-and-ball would be lost in their style of war. |
redcoat | 07 May 2013 3:04 p.m. PST |
Not quite buck and ball, but in Rhode Island a British sentry was court martialled (and acquitted) on 19 Feb 1777 for wounding Hessians who were, it appears, stealing from a local farm: link The wounds were described as having been inflicted by musket ball(s) cut up into rough slugs: 1st Fuzileer Iburg had received seven wounds from Balls cut into square pieces, three of which penetrated three or four Inches deep into the parts of the bone of the right leg; two Balls pierced the posteriors to the same depth one the right ham; one entered the Right Arm, in such a manner that without a large incision it would not have been possible to save it- this Operation produced a great Effusion of blood, and was attended with a violent Fever. 2nd Fuzileer Wallenshausen had five wounds, from the same kind of slugs as follows- One in the right Hip near the joint, two others in the outward joint of the Right Hand, followed also by a violent Fever. 3d Evidence Doctor Hoop of the Hessians being duly sworn and having an interpreter was questioned by the Court, Whether to the best of his Opinion, the deceas'd Fuzileer Iburg, died of the wounds he received on the first of January Ulto? Answers. Yes, to the best of his Opinion he did. |
spontoon | 07 May 2013 4:24 p.m. PST |
I'll check and see if the study made it to the 'net. Basically it says that when trialled the buck and ball cartirdge can be loaded two ways. Buck over ball; or ball over buck. If the former the ball receives most of the force of discharge and pushes the buck aside so that it fall in a wide area only a short distance from the muzzle. The ball is also impeded from best performance by pushing through the buck. If loaded ball over Buck, the buckshot being not one solid mass for the discharge gases to push on doesn't recieve the full force of discharge and is slowed by the wieght of the ball. Thus the ball doesn't receive a full force of the charge either. The ball is thus slowed and the buck once again drops off at a close range. His conclusion was that either ball or buckshot was more effective, except at almost hand to hand ranges. Suggested that it might be useful in cavalry pistols. Also suggested a French innovation of placing several buckshot into a soft wood "sabot" that would break up after firing, but would more effectively distribute the charge to the buckshot. I believe Robert Rogers was a proponent of buck & ball cartridges; but who would put real faith in the opinions of such a shameless self promoter, cashiered embezzler, drunkard, con-man and cannibal! |
andygamer | 07 May 2013 9:26 p.m. PST |
but who would put real faith in the opinions of such a shameless self promoter, cashiered embezzler, drunkard, con-man and cannibal! But he always speaks highly of you, Spontoon. |
Ilodic | 07 May 2013 11:04 p.m. PST |
I have spoken to several re-enactors a few years ago about handgonnes/handcannons, and the use of various projectiles goes back to the late middle ages. Various projectiles such as musket arrows (short arrows with a hardened point to fit snuggly down the barrel) and "fletchetts" (lots of nasty, nail shaped projectiles) were used in addition to the common "ball". Thus I imagined someone, at sometime, long before the 18th. century used a combination of lead/stone shot with one of the "buck" types mentioned above. The question is, was it standard issue at one point, perhaps just for a single battle, for a small regiment?
I was also told soldiers would melt the shot/ball into bee's wax, and as it was shot, the wax melted along the way, while keeping a tight grouping. I have tried this before in my Bess with 9 .30 cal. shot, and it works pretty well, even though the wax does not fully melt, it does season the bore nicely though. (Not meaning to be passive aggressive here. But one way to discover an earlier use, is to cross post to the Renaissance or Medieval board
some people only frequent those boards.) ilodic. |
zippyfusenet | 08 May 2013 5:36 a.m. PST |
Thanks again guys. Yes, I figure gunners have loaded up with loose shot, small pebbles and the occasional rat since firearms were introduced. But I'm asking about military use of formal buck-and-ball *cartridges*, which couldn't have happened before paper cartridges were adopted for military use in the late 17th century. No passive aggression here, we're right in each others' faces, ain't we? Just like it should be on the internet ;-) |
spontoon | 08 May 2013 4:12 p.m. PST |
@ Andygamer; But I live to revile Robert Rogers! If not for Kenneth Roberts' novel he would have been consigned to the Hell of oblivion years ago! |
Supercilius Maximus | 09 May 2013 4:46 a.m. PST |
@spontoon, Using the special 28mm figures provided, please show us where the nasty Ranger touched you
. ;^)) |
John the Greater | 09 May 2013 10:37 a.m. PST |
I was at the Monmouth battlefield a while ago and there was a display of the "buck" from American buch-and-ball made from cut up nails. The British complained that this was barbaric. Regimental Fire & Fury gives a special bonus for buck-and-ball at close range. This seems to be consistant with its reported effectiveness during the ACW. For example the Irish Brigade was armed with .69 smoothbores at the sunken road at Antietam, firing at 50 yards, and the effect was brutal even though the Confederates were under partial cover. |
Thomas Mante | 11 May 2013 8:53 a.m. PST |
Zippy Paper cartridges are mentioned as early as 1625 in Gervase Markham's 'The Souldiers Accidence'. I suspect mainly used for pistol/carbine rather than musket. ECW Royalist ordnance issues show most of the ammo to be barrels of powder and shot. As to multiple loads a study of C17th lead shot from Northamptonshire (not the Naseby battle site but a putative training site from mid C17th) seems to discuss this but until my copy of the book arrives will not be able to confirm if this is buck & ball . See here esp description of chapter 7 foresightbooks.com |
|