"Sharps rifle versus musket" Topic

I'm working on a project that involves some late 1850s pre-Civil War Single figure skirmishing games. Can anyone tell me how the Sharps rifle compared to the standard musket of the day. This in wargames terms.this would include rate fire, range, effectiveness.

For example, would the Sharps shoot twice as fast as a musket?
From what I have read the Sharps is easier to load, but what ratio? I have seen reference to 8 to 10 shots per minute. Is this accurate? How many shots does a musket in those days get? 2-4?

Is there a significant difference in the ranges in terms of ratio. 2 -1,1.5 – 1
In equally skillful hands, does the Sharps get more hits?

What most civilians of the time Have smooth bore muskets? How about state militias – – rifled muskets?

Thanks much for the advice. I've read about both types of weapons but I just can't get my head around the differences in game terms. I've not had any shooting experience myself with black powder weapons.

In the past I've played this game with generic weapons and players have suggested there should be differences among them.

Have a 54 cal. Sharps. Very easy to load. Use the trigger guard/lever to open the breach. Drop a lead bullet in. Fill with powder and close the breach with the lever. Place a cap, aim and fire. No fooling with ramrods or such. Much quicker than my muzzle loaders.

What about fouling over a number of shots in your Sharps. Black powder is dirty and if the barrel gets fouled it increases resistance going through the barrel and increases pressure. One of the reasons I never shot black powder weapons was that it got messy and was not as easy to clean a weapon. With a muzzle loader at some point you could not push the bullet down the barrel. With a breach loader you never knew how bad the barrel was fouled.

I've used both. Rate of fire is not going to be much different assuming trained troops. If you are in a firefight you just stick the ram rod in the dirt between shots (if you don't accidentally shoot it at your opponents) and both weapons use paper cartridges – the top face of the 'gas check' on the Sharp's breech is designed to cleanly shear off the end of the cartridge and expose the powder to the flash from the primer. Both have weaknesses – the ram rod problem alluded to above and the Sharps has a convoluted flash path which leads to weak ignition with some primers. Of course the Sharps did not require you to stand up to load it efficiently.

As for rifles or not, smooth bore muskets were still on issue in State units up until the Civil War, and in the South they continued to be used – Stonewall Jackson was shot with one causing fatal injures. There was a degree of opposition to rifled muskets, some officers preferring 'buck and ball' loads – a round ball supplemented with a few 'buckshot' up to .32 calibre for use against the natives.

Civilians would have whatever they could afford – most early flintlocks were converted to percussion if they were still in good condition and there was a healthy localised firearms industry supplying both rifles and smoothbores – for a farmer a smoothbore was often more useful as it could be used to shoot birds and small game with shot and bigger animals (and people) with ball while a professional hunter/trapper would often have both a heavy rifle and a smoothbore, both being better at different roles.

I own a Berdans Sharps rifle. I have yet to shoot it though. Ordering rounds as I write this..
Wolfshanza, would love some input on cartridge making…

Bob

Fouling does not usually become an issue until at least 20 rounds have been fired. The ordnance department specifically made the rounds smaller than the bore to not only facilitate loading, but to take fouling into account as well. The rounds were also "greased" to not only aid in loading, but to soften the fouling and make for easier cleaning.

BTW, black powder weapons are MUCH easier to clean than modern ones. All you need is hot water and some patches. A small piece of leather or soft wood is placed between the cone and the hammer, and the weapon placed upright. Hot water (or cold, in a pinch) is poured down the barrel and allowed to soak for a few minutes. Repeat until the water comes out clean. Run a patch down the bore to wipe it dry, then an oiled patch to protect the bore.

Lastly, remove the cone and clean out the flash channel with the cone pick kept in the cap pouch. Clean the cone with hot water and the cone pick, and replace.

Let the hammer down on the cone, and place the tompion back into the muzzle. Done.

In the rare instance where a lock needs cleaning, simply remove the two screws holding it in place, then boil the entire lock for 12-15 minutes. Dry it well, oil it, and replace.

Of course the Sharps did not require you to stand up to load it efficiently.

I think this is bigger than rate of fire. You can easily reload prone. Muskets could and were reloaded prone but it was quite a business.

For simplicity's sake, in my homemade rules I give breechloaders twice the rate of fire as a muzzle-loader but the same range and accuracy (which are more dependent on the quality of the shooter than of the weapon). Repeaters get 3 times the RoF.

I too have fired both weapons and agree with bsrlee's statements. I did notice that the Sharps actually had a higher chance of miss fires ( either the cartridge not cut correctly or spark not getting to the powder. There was also an issue with spilled powder fouling the breach mechanics.

As to the bore fouling, I fired 50 rounds, from a '61 Springfield, one afternoon. Each round was made as per issue, lubed in the same method and materials. After 50 rounds I could no longer force the ball past a ring of fouling that had built up about 6 inches down from the mussel. In each pack of 10 cartridges one round would be a cleaner round (I did not use any of these, it may have made a difference). This round had what looks like a roofing nail stuck in the bottom. The idea was that when fired it would scrape the bore clean of the fouling. Just I should point out the the fouling was not just burnt powder. It was a mixture of the lube and powder. The dude would actually harden.

Smooth bores vs rifles. If you look at the ordinance returns from the war you'll find that there was large number of Smooth bores in service to and through Gettysburg. Some units retained their smooth bore till the end. Civilian use – would depend on what the civilian used his piece for. Rifle of large game, smooth bore (aka shot gun) for bird and small game.
Side note: My father and uncles use to go hunting (before WWII) and instead of using shot guns (as required by law) they would go to Woolworths and buy CW 69cal smooth bore muskets for $1. USD After their day out they would through the weapons away. It was easier then cleaning a shot gun.

I've fired both, live and blanks. The Sharps is definitely faster by at least 50%, maybe more. If you can get the Lawrence automatic pellet primer to work properly it is even faster since it is self-priming-no fumbling for percussion caps. Loading kneeling or lying down would be three or four times faster than with a muzzle-loader. Fouling can be a problem as is having the breech block overheat. There have been instances of powder leaking down into the forward wooden grip and exploding. As for accuracy, in the hands of a trained marksman the Sharps has easily twice the effective range of a rifle-musket. But as we know, the CW soldiers were rarely given any marksmanship training. So without that training a man would probably score about as many hits with one type as the other.

This is a very interesting discussion on the performance of the Sharps with paper cartridges. I've never had the opportunity of firing one, so I wondered how it really stacked up. Of course the situation changed dramatically once the Sharps was adapted to fire metallic cartridges: no more fiddling with primers, and no more loose powder fouling the breech mechanism.

Bobgnar – I quite unfortunately just this morning packed up my ACW library for a house move; otherwise I would have happily posted a contribution to your query. A book you should definitely consult is "The Rifled Musket" by Claud Fuller. That book reproduces in full original the very extensive Union Department of Ordnance comparative trials of all service issue long arms in use by the Union Army in the ACW.

B

Does a sharps use brass cartridge or paper cartridges? Looking it up seems the after war versions are whats reproduction. But for some reason think its still a paper cartridges which has to be easy to make. Cast the bullets and away you go.

Looked it up more closely, seems both can be had. Casting my own smoothbore Brown Bess replica balls. Its very easy, the mould is the expensive part.

I didn't fool with cartridges for my sharps (too lazy) Easy to make, though. Get a piece of dowling the diameter of the round. Place the bullet at the end and use something like rice paper to make a tube with the round in it. Fill with BP and seal/twist the ends at whatever length you need. The rolling block will shear off the excess when you close it.

The cartridges used by the Sharps during the Civil War were paper. And, of course, the soldiers didn't make them themselves. They were produced in factories and shipped to the troops in packs of ten.

As for accuracy, in the hands of a trained marksman the Sharps has easily twice the effective range of a rifle-musket. But as we know, the CW soldiers were rarely given any marksmanship training. So without that training a man would probably score about as many hits with one type as the other.

Of course, the Sharps was usually only issued to better marksmen, such as the U.S. Sharpshooters and the Pa. Bucktails.

The cartridges used by the Sharps during the Civil War were paper.

I was under the impression that the Sharps used cloth cartridges. At any rate, pretty sure they didn't switch to metal cartridges until after the war, and of course the gun was modified somewhat to fit the cartridge.

If you can get the Lawrence automatic pellet primer to work properly it is even faster since it is self-priming-no fumbling for percussion caps.

Often wondered about that system, how reliable it was. Does the rifle have to be held at a certain angle (horizontal?) to make it work right?

I make paper cartridges for my Brown Bess but of course its tear off a end, primewith some and the reat pour down the barrel, wrap ball with paper and ram.

The Sharps used both commercially produced cloth cartridges, as well as Ordnance Department produced paper cartridges.

Having said that, both types were self-consuming. The paper cartridges were made with nitrated paper, and the cloth were closer to what today we know as gun-cotton.

Today,you can make self-consuming cartridges using large sheets of flash-paper cut to the proper trapezoid. Alternately,you can use either cigarette papers, or make your own nitrated paper using onion-skin paper.

An alternate version for making blank rounds of the military paper cartridge may be found here:

PDF link

The Lawrence pellet primer was mechanically unreliable and most soldiers just used the standard percussion caps most of the time. But there are accounts written by Berdan sharpshooters that mention using the Lawrence system when they needed rapid fire. I have a Sharps with the Lawrence and the angle of the gun would have no affect that I can see. The system had a spring-loaded magazine holding the primer pellets (which were copper disks with the primer inside) and as the hammer fell, a slide connected to the hammer would push out the top pellet directly onto the cone an instant before the hammer struck. The hammer had a cavity which would enclose the pellet and prevent it from sliding off. I've never actually used this as I have no source for the primer pellets.

I've owned three of them and recently sold the last one after retiring from reenacting. Rate of fire is about double that of the rifled musket because although you don't have to fool with a ramrod, you're still fumbling with a separate cap in the heat of battle. Never had a misfire problem, although you have to watch for spilled powder accumulating on top of the breech which can flash right in your face; looks dramatic but it's hell on your eyebrows!

The only problem came with fouling after about 20 rounds when the build up made the breech action difficult to open, but after 20 rounds you should be relieved to refill your box anyway if you are a cavalryman. Even the infantry would have expended their ready use supply and had to break into the reserve carried in the tins in the lower half of the cartridge box.

Don't forget one round in 10 was a 'cleaner bullet' – the actual effectiveness of which is debatable, to say the least! link

Back to the Sharps: for some reason I could not get the Mrs. to sit there sewing dozens of linen cartridge cases, so used the cigarette paper method, tailoring the rounds on a former to exactly fit the breech. These were then coated with model airplane dope to ensure everything burned up on ignition and no smouldering sparks or fragments of unburned paper remained in the chamber when I introduced the next round – this is why I still have all the fingers I was issued with 59 years ago :)

While the sharps rifle has a higher effective rate of fire, in reality that isn't as big a factor as you would think. The officers commanding men with either weapon would generally discourage trying to achieve a high rate in most circumstances. 1) A high rate means you use up your available ammo faster, then you might be low or out when you really need it. 2) The higher the rate, the quicker you get to a fouled piece. 3) Obviously, less accuracy per shot with a higher rate. 4) You are more likely to have accidents in the ranks. I.e., It is not polite to blow your buddies heads off trying to get that extra shot in.

Everything has its useful time and place. For example, the high volume of fire of Spencer armed Union cavalry conferred a considerable advantage in repelling attacks by Confederate infantry units.

B

I think the biggest advantage for the breach loader is that it could be loaded while prone. That means less of a chance the enemy hitting you. More moral for the rifle men.

Yes, that made it very handy for skirmishers, who didn't have to fight in formation.