From Keith Urbans book, he thinks most firefights with bakers were with in 250 yards.
Again, rifles are machines and in the end it's the operator not the machine.
We know a modern M40A1 can kill a mat at 1100-1200 yards, but how many can do it?
We know a Springfield riffled musket could kill at 600 yards, but how many could do it?
We know a brown bess can be very accurat up to 150 yards if handled right and right powder beeing used. Yet from history muskets were conciderd very inaccurate.
It's the man not the gun.
British light infantry not armed with bakers did engage and hit running enemies at 150 yeards,
Some a natural good shooters, some can be trained at it.
I'm sure Plukets story about hitting the french general is true, but weather it's 400, 500 or 700 yards we will never know, it is was a shot longer them people would concider doable.
The bakers advantage was not sniping geneals at half a mile.
Those armed with them, could engade enemies about 100 yards before those armed with muskets(and the enemy only used muskets) And the hit rate was higher.
A good weapon that gave a small but notiable tactical advantage, it wasn't a Rifle that won the war(as no rifle as ever been that)
The training and espirt of the rifles(and other british light infantry) had much more effect then a tool.
goes to sea with the Terrain Mat.
