"Minie Rifles - Rate of Fire in Combat" Topic

Solid information on this topic is hard to come by, but I ran across some interesting commentary in the regimental history of the 5th New Hampshire volunteers – a Union Second Corps unit that served in the East from the Peninsula through to Appomattox. The following relates to a June 1864 action at Petersburg and is excerpted from 5NHV's official report -

"During a charge made by a portion of the Ninth Corps on the 17th I was ordered by the brigade commander to move my regiment forward. In the execution of this order the regiment moved out of its breastworks in line of battle and making a half wheel to the right occupied a rise of ground in front of the enemy's earthworks, commanding the rebel works, for two hours and a half, and expending 160 rounds of ammunition per man. While all did well I beg to make special mention of First-Sergeant R. H. Chase, Company C, for his bravery and coolness throughout this action. Three times, through the heavy fire, he carried communications to the brigade commander, and with his own hands brought cartridges from the breastworks to his regiment."

So, in this particular action at least, the rate of fire (they only suffered 29 casualties out of 450 odd men in the action) was a little better than one round per man per minute.

Elsewhere in the volume and in connection with an earlier battle (1863? – no time to track down the exact passage) the author commented upon the effects of fouling (5NHV was armed with Enfields at this time) – basically saying that after a while the bores became so dirty that the bullets had to be hammered down the bore. Some time in 1864, 5NHV was issued with Springfields, which the author claims were preferred over the Enfield by the soldiers. Whereas .577 ammunition was commonly provided for use in both the .577 Enfield and the .58 Springfield, one wonders if perhaps use of the slightly smaller .577 round in the .58 Springfield delayed or perhaps diminished the effects of fouling in the bore. Just a SWAG.

FWIW.

B

Very likely. Similarly, you find many complaints about other foreign made weapons like the Austrian Lorenz or Belgium made rifles. As those weapons were less standardized in bore and ammo specially made for them was hard to come by, the men were likely reduced to using wrong ammo at times and suffering for it.

The common refrain was that the Enfield was more accurate than the Springfield, but that it fouled faster.

Both of these are apparent effects because of the ammunition issued, and not the fault of the weapons themselves.

The US Ordnance Department manufactured a .57 round so that it could be used by both the Enfield and the Springfield. The common denominator here is windage, which is the difference between the outside diameter of the round, and the inside diameter of the bore.

Because of the smaller amount of windage in the Enfield (.57 round for a .577 bore) there was less energy expended in forcing the skirts of the round into the riflings, and more energy expended by the expanding propellent gasses in pushing the round through the barrel and downrange. Better seating of the round, higer velocity, etc.

With the Springfield, there was more windage. The .57 round in a .58 bore. Thus it took more energy to fully seat the round, with more gas seepage around it while it was being forced into the riflings, with a resulting loss of energy to propel the round through the barrel and downrange.

Fouling, however, (like the accuracy issues) was an apparent thing, because the gas produced by the powder as it expanded was a constant due to the standard powder charge for the cartridge. It's burn rate was very consistent. However, because of the lesser amount of windage in the Enfield, more residue (or fouling) APPEARED to form. It was the same amount as for the Springfield, but it had a smaller surface area to cover, so could build up more deeply.

Most of the time this wasn't an issue for the troops. The federal army issued Williams Cleaner Bullets to the troops which had a zinc washer with a metal plug fitted to the base of the round. When fired, the plug was driven into the center whole of the zinc washer, causing it to expand and as it traveled down the bore, it scraped the fouling away. It actually worked very well.

In addition, there were usually ample weapons laying about from casualties so if your weapon was fouled, odds are you could find a suitable replacement right quickly.

If all else failed, the bore could be quickly swabbed with a few patches soaked in water from the canteen of the soldier. This would take, at most, 3-5 minutes. A final dry patch down the bore removed any remaining moisture, and if needs be, the soldier could simply fire a percussion cap without a cartridge being loaded, with the flash and heat being enough to remove any bit of moisture in the breech.

Then it was back to loading and firing.

The rate of fire of one round per minute is only an average. I would not expect that they stood there for two and a half hours firing as fast as they could!

"The rate of fire of one round per minute is only an average. I would not expect that they stood there for two and a half hours firing as fast as they could!"

….. My belief is that, after a short initial period of fire with a clean musket in relatively smoke-free conditions, one round per minute was about as fast as a soldier was actually able to fire over an extended firefight under combat conditions.

Strictly my opinion of course.

B

Each man probably only carried 60 rounds, anyway: 40 in the cartridge box and 20 in the pockets.

In the Napoleonic wars, trained troops could manage two shots per minute. Presumably the rifling made rifled muskets harder to load, but surely they could still do better than just one shot per minute?

Absolutely it was possible to fire more than 3 round per minute. On the range, under ideal conditions, a man could consistently fire 3 rounds/minute through the first 20 rounds.

After that point, fouling slwly started to reduce that rate.

However, in combat, 2 rds/minute was the norm. It was the result of many factors. Training, ammunition supply, fouling, weather, visibility, etc.

Commonly, the regiment would begin it's fire with either a single volley, then the men beginning to fire at will, or, more commonly, starting it's first fire by "Fire by Files" and then going to fire at will.

Under either of these, the loading and firing became more deliberate, thus slowing down firing rates to about 2 rds/min and then maybe 1 rd/minute as the smoke built up and the barrels became hot.

This is one thing I'd like to point out. If you've never handled a rifle-musket or even a musket under a bright sun, even firing blanks, you can't imagine how hot those barrels become after as few as 10 rounds.

You can actually burn your hand on a barrel if you aren't careful. Period accounts speak of men pouring the water from their canteens over the barrel to cool it enough to handle while loading. The only way to counter this is to slow down the rate of fire.

Having said that, what is more likely occurring in the account of the 5th NH Vols mentioned above, is several periods of sustained fire interrupted by several longer periods between attacks.

Anyway, that's my 2 cent's worth.

V/R

Earl J. Hess has addressed this for us. In a sustained firefight the average rate of fire is 1 round per 2.1 minutes in his sample set.

Here's something else that slows down the rate of fire a bit: The cartridge box holds 40 rounds. However, only 20 are loose in the top of the box. The remaining 20 rounds are in 2 packets/bundles of 10 cartridges each. A bundle also includes an additional paper tube with 12 percussion caps. This lays across the top of the bundle.

After expending the ready rounds (20) in the top of the box, (The box has a pair of tin inserts which have dividers in the top, and an empty space/shelf below for the spare bundle) The soldier must then pull out the two tin inserts, remove the two bundles, unwrap them and place the cartridges in the top divided shelf and then replace the tins into the box. Additionally, he must unwrap the tubes of percussion caps and pour them into his cap pouch.

Here is a picture of a typical box with the two tins removed (reproductions)

The British system was similar, but the box had one large single tin which had several dividers. It was designed to hold the individual, unopened cartridge bundles. On his waistbelt, the soldier had a large, expanding semi-cicular pouch called an expense pouch. The soldier would remove a bundle from his box, open it, and place those rounds into the expense pouch. From this, he would draw rounds until they were expended, then repeat the process.

In the English system, Percussion caps were packed into separate packets and issued directly to the soldier. The cap pouch was won either on the cartridge belt, about the middle of the chest, or, more commonly, sewn to the front right face of the cartridge box and under the large weather flap.

A typical English box is shown here:

Again, reproduction with tin insert removed for show.

here's an original English pattern box showing the tin insert in place, and the percussion cap box sewn directly to the front right face of the box.

Right. And the 20 rounds in the pockets were two more of the 10-round packets.

Early on the second day of Chickamauga, some Union division COs had 100 rounds per man issued. I guess they had a bad feeling.

The 5NHV regimental history mentioned the men having been issued 80 rounds on several occasions before going into battle. At the DuBose collection ACW museum in Atlanta, one of the interactive exhibits allows visitors to sample the weight of a cartridge case with 40 rounds – surprisingly heavy. 80-100 rounds carried would be a burden indeed.

B

Issuing the men extra rounds is one thing. Having them available for use is another. A letter dated 11 Aug 1864 from Lt. Col P.V. Hagner (ordnance) to Gen Ramsay, Chief of Ordnance, Washington, remarks that there was great waste in the AoP of ammunition, due to the men being issued 60 rounds when their boxes could hold only 40. An officer of the 11th US Infantry noted that the men would throw away the extra rounds at the first opportunity.

This was not at all uncommon. As early as May of 1863, Hooker reduced the extra rounds to one bundle of 10, to be carried in the knapsack, but commenters who were on the march to Chancellorsville noted that the roads were littered with not only blankets, overcoats and extra gear, but long trails of unopened bundles of cartridges.

Indeed, one has to wonder just where these cartridges were to be carried. If placed in the pockets, they'd cause no little amount of rubbing on the men's legs, due to their weight, and the humidity and resulting sweat from the wool clothing and muslin pockets would become quite uncomfortable, even to likely tearing through the pocket's material.

Even though the cartridges and bundle wrappers were made with "sized" paper, this only made the moisture resistant, not waterproof. The haversacks only carried the soldier's rations and the built up grease would rapidly spoil the bundles, even if there were room for them along with the food, plate & utensils.

The knapsack is the perfect place to carry the spare rounds, keeping them relatively safe and away from water. However, it was standard, whenever possible, to drop the knapsacks before going into action, and there'd be darned little time to have the men drop packs, open them and retrieve the spare rounds (even if the men had kept them) and then close up their packs, etc.

It was much easier to use the 40 rounds from the box and then, if more were needed, to forage from the dead and wounded until more could be brought up.

What kindred said, every word, I can't tell you how many packs of reserve cartridges I'd pull from my sack coat pocket, pants pocket,, haversack that would be spoiled by oils, grease, wax, sweat, water ( fording Saylors Creek on a few occasions) . I just went with 40 in the box. After 40 rounds, we were usually used up physically and pulled out of line, or got more rounds from the file closers, who got packs of rounds from runners.

Concur with Clays Russians. I had similar experiences with spoiled rounds, not only from fording but from rain & humidity.

I went to great lengths to male my blank cartridges look and act like live rounds. Sized paper, period construction techniques, bundle markings, thread, etc. But no matter where I put spare rounds, except for my knapsack, it was a given that most, if not all, wouldn't survive even a couple days in the field. I, and almost everyone else I knew, also started ditching the extra rounds and carrying just the 40 in the box.