"Weight of shot?" Topic

Anybody a ballistics expert? I wonder how much of a difference the weight of shot made in the WSS? I've read during the WSS that the Dutch and British used 1 ounce shot and the french 3/4 or 1/2. Just how much of a difference would this make? If you look at modern ballistics it seems to make a significant difference. I know ther are accounts in the American Civil War of bullets knocking people down but not peneatrating at long distances (over a 1000 yards).
Any thoughts? Did this make a huge difference in combat?

Increased mass will increase the kinetic energy of the projectile according to the formula:
K = 0.5mv^2
The greater the kinetic energy the more dfamage it will cause on impact.

Thank you Major Bumsore. Do you think that at 100 to 200 yards the 3/4 ounce ball would penetrate uniforms ect very well?

Thank you Major Bumsore. Do you think that at 100 to 200 yards the 3/4 ounce ball would penetrate uniforms etc. very well?

The effective range of a smoothbore musket is usually reckoned to be about 100 yds.

AFAIK they used the same amount of powder so the heavier shot would have less velocity (the v in the formula). So presumably what you gained on mass (m) you would loose on velocity?

AFAIK they used the same amount of powder so the heavier shot would have less velocity (the v in the formula). So presumably what you gained on mass (m) you would loose on velocity?

Correct. I was assuming the same muzzle velocity.

I think effective range is more about accuracy than penetration, stray musket balls killed people at longer ranges than were considered effective – they just were not aimed shots.

As the range increases it gets progressively more difficult to judge the correct elevation and there is a large variation in initial velocity anyway so the spread of shots around a target increases with range. At some point it becomes inefficient to shoot because the hit rate is so small – this is likely to be under the range at which penetration of the uniform is possible.

In general a larger sphere will lose energy slower than a smaller one so, in simplistic theory, a heavy ball is better than a light one as it will retain a greater proportion of its muzzle eneegy. Sadly external ballistics isn't quite that simple but it isn't too far from reality.

As I remember when we where working on our navel rules,
A French pound is heavier than a Spanish, a Spanish is heavier than a British.
So this may alter any of the calculations.

you have to also take into account the nature of black powder. The more time you entrap it (heaver shot taking longer to clear the gun)the more energy it can release and transfer into the shot. So the speed of shot are going to stay around equal speeds. Also they do ten to use more powder in larger guns.

So assuming that 2 WSS units were 100 yrds apart one firing a 1 ounce ball and the other a 3/4 ounce ball, and if in theroy (yes I know it would not happen in real life) both had the same number of hits would you get more penatraing wound or kill causing hits with the 1 ounce ball than the 3/4 ounce balls? Would it really matter at this range? Thanks for the info!

So assuming that 2 WSS units were 100 yrds apart one firing a 1 ounce ball and the other a 3/4 ounce ball, and if in theroy (yes I know it would not happen in real life) both had the same number of hits would you get more penatraing wound or kill causing hits with the 1 ounce ball than the 3/4 ounce balls?

I think your best guess, given all the parameters, variables and uncertainties discussed above, is that the overall effect would be about the same.

I do not claim to be an expert in anything, but I know a fair amount about ballistics. The formula for kinetic energy is correct, K = 1/2MV^2. However, mass and velocity are related differently when talking about momentum.

For example: If you take the first derivative of the above equation, you have dK = MVdV or dK/dV = MV, where dK/dV is the momentum. Here is an example given two theoretical masses and initial velocities.

Mass 30 grams Velocity 200m/s

Kinetic energy is then .5(.03)200^2 or 600 Joules (Energy)

Momentum is (.03)200 = 6 kg second

Now a higher mass, lower velocity:

Mass 50 grams Velocity 150m/s

Kinetic energy is then .5(.05)150^2 or 562.5 Joules

Momentum is (.05)(150) = 7.5 kg second.

Which is better, higher mass lower velocity, or lower mass and higher velocity?

It depends on what you mean by "better". Newton's first law states that a heavier object will stay on its path longer and retain its initial energy. HOWEVER, a higher initial velocity results in getting to the target more quickly, imparts more energy, but does not "hit as hard." Case in point, rifle, higher velocity, smaller mass, v.s. pistol, usually lower velocity, higher mass.

For cannons, a larger/heavier ball will go further with more "punch." Canister was used at close range, and could pierce more easily, but the momentum died very quickly, and could not be carried as far.

It is worth noting it took quite a while for early gunners to realize lengthening the barrel rapidly increased the initial velocity. This is why the handgonne was inevitably replaced by the harquebus. Historically, innovations in artillery tended to precede those with small arms.

I hope that helped.

ilodic.

Is it kineteic energy or momentum that is more important at the moment of impact?

Bumsore – Check this out… slow truck vs. fast meatball.

link

Without getting science-ie (not a strong point of mine). Muskets at the time were measured in number of balls per weight. And the french "pouce" was a little different from the English "pound" (pound as in weight, not modern British currency).

All that aside, French muskets tended to be in the (by modern measurement system) .62 to .69 caliber range where as English and Dutch tended to favour the .73 to .78 caliber range

Bumsore – Check this out… slow truck vs. fast meatball.

link

Yeah, I know all that, but it doesn't answer my question.

To take my last post and draw the lines to the original question…

In the modern ballistics sense, yes there would be a difference between French and Anglo-Dutch muskets. From a practical standpoint, considering the "effective" and "useful" range of the different muskets, the penetration and damaging capacity of the muskets would be negligible. Using muskets against tanks, sure there'd be a difference. But when the difference is the nationality of origin of the wool coats is the total difference, a .62 musket ball is going to be just as destructive as a .75.

At 100 yards the practical effect of 1 oz and 3/4 oz balls would be essentially the same in terms of terminal effect, that is the number of kills and penetration. Both make a very large hole in the body and that hole will be deep at 100 yards.

As the range increases the depth of penetration will become an issue. A ball that hits you and penetrates 1/2 inch will wound you, but not likely kill you.

In modern police firearms we look for a penetration depth of 12 to 14 inches. Imagine a bullet hitting the left arm from the side, having to penetrate the bone and then continue on to penetrate the heart of a large man.

In general the larger the diameter of the the hole, the more damage it does to the person being hit. The deeper the penetration, the more damage it does to the person being hit. You look for rounds that are large enough to do a lot of damage and fast enough to do deep wounds.

It's all very complex and everything you do is a trade off because it will negatively impact some other aspect of shooting.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
SGT Says blog

Great info thank you all! I very much enjoyed the explanations. My original intention was to try and understand why in some of the battles of the WSS there is such a disproportionate difference in casualties in open battle (excluding assaults on fixed positions). One theory I read was the weight of the shot (bullets) was different and this may have been the cause of the difference. So it sounds like maybe at longer ranges 200-300 yds. this may have started to make a difference. I can only imagine this was made worse by the ill-fitting ammo and barrels that were all very close in size being manufacturing methods were not anywhere near what's done today plus no wading or patches just the paper on the cartridge. I'm very sure there was lots of blow by.

A smothbore musketball could kill at 400-500 yards(tho did not do the same massive damage as close range)

All those marshals of france that got shot 5-8 times during the Napoleonic wars I would guess got shot byond 300 yards, could still kill you, but given they had better surgeons and care, they had a better chance of surving.

At 50 yards, a musketball would just go through you making a big gaping hole right through you.

At 300-400 yards, a suregon chould probebly pull the ball out with thongs.

There are reports of soldiers getting hit by stray ball a mile from the action, but at that range it will just give you a big bruse and hurt alot.

Is it kineteic energy or momentum that is more important at the moment of impact?

It depends on what you mean by more important. Cannon balls carry further…this is the main advantage.

Think of it this way. Would you rather have a car dropped on your head from 2 feet, or get stabbed in the brain very quickly by a knife?

Graphic, I know, but I think it illustrates the point.

For a cannon, momentum matters, especially mass of the ball.

For small arms, it depends. Using the rifle vs. pistol analogy. The two create very different wound cavities. If one is speaking of two different size spheres, the other major variables is powder load (and quality) barrel length, rifling, if applicable, and if the ball is batched or not.

However, if you want to really get down to what matters during this time, it is how much lead you can put down range. At this time, men in line formation were just platforms for muskets…load fast, level (kind of aim?), fire, rinse and repeat.

ilodic

Another factor is the weight and reliability of the musket.The French would probably do ok against most opponents in this I think.
Training also would seriously impact on casualties caused methinks!

(NB: I deleted the message above as it published twice!. Thought you might like to know as I always wonder when I see deletions!)

A smothbore musketball could kill at 400-500 yards

Indeed, but a heavy, low velocity musket ball drops some 12 inches every 50 yards; to obtain a hit at 4-500 yards, the point of aim would have to be almost 10 feet above head height. More akin to mortar fire.