"Mark urban quote musket vs rifle hit rate" Topic

I think in his rifles book he mentions that only 1:250 musket shot hit it's target. While with rifles it was 1:20 or so.

Does anyone have the quote at hand?

quote reads as follows

Eight out of ten soldiers in our regular regiments will aim in the same manner at an object at the distance of three hundred yards, as at one only fifty. it must hence be evident that the greater part of those shots are lost or expended in vain; indeed The calculation has been made, that only one shot out of two hundred fired from muskets in the field takes effect, while one out of twenty from rifles is the average, in this way the Green Jackets hoped to more than compensate for the rifles rate of fire. which with perhaps one shot per minute was two or three times slower than a smooth bore musket

Attributed to an unnamed rifleman in the army talking about the superiority of the 95ths technique's and instruction

page 34 The Rifles by Mark Urban

Thanks!

Funny, I know American muzzle-loader shooters that can fire 2-3 shots a minute with patched roundballs (and percussion caps, dunno how much faster that may make things).

So I doubt that the rifles were that much slower shooting. At least in the hands of a well-trained soldier.

Do they have to hammer the ball into the barrel with a mallet.

The quote is from William Surtees' 'Twenty Five Years in the Rifle Brigade'.

The actual quote is:

I will venture to assert, that eight out of ten of the soldiers of our regular regiments will aim in the same manner at an object at the distance of 300 yards, as at one at only 50. It must hence be evident that the greater part of those shots are lost or expended in vain; indeed the calculation has been made, that only one shot out of 200 fired from muskets in the field takes effect, while one out of twenty from rifles is average. My opinion is that our line troops ought to be armed with a better description of musket.

Surtees does not comment on the comparative rate of fire of the rifle compared to the musket. Loose balls and patches were phased out during the Peninsular War and most ammunition would have been issued in cartridge form, either with the ball patched or unpatched. This ammunition was far more easy to load, and the commonly held view that the unpatched ball cartridge reduced the effectiveness of a rifle to that of a musket is not true.

Surtees was in a good position to make a judgement on the relative effectiveness of rifles and muskets, as he had also served as a private in the light company of the 56th regiment, seeing action in the Low Countries in 1799. He commented in his memoirs:

I am now firmly persuaded, that of nearly 200 shots I fired on 2nd October 1799, in Holland, not one took effect, from my total want of knowledge how to aim.

The above two passages appear in Surtees' memoirs just after he describes the carnage wrought amongst the French at Tarbes, which has been discussed in the other thread on the effectiveness of Riflemen. Surtees wrote of Tarbes:

But it is not so much to the driving away of this so much stronger force, that I would draw the reader's attention, as to the great loss the enemy sustained, and solely from our fire. I believe I shall not be far from the truth , if I state their loss in killed and wounded as equal to the whole strength of our sixteen companies.

Lord Wellington, in his dispatch, mentions the destruction caused in the enemy's ranks as unusually severe, hence the superiority of rifles over the common musket, or else the superior mode of using our arms beyond what is practised in the line.

no, most shooting was done with the cartridge paper as the patch. the patch which could be leather, cloth, silk (see movie the last of the Mowhicans) with a larger ball need to be hammered for a tighter fit.

YouTube link

YouTube link

YouTube link

I love youtube

So I doubt that the rifles were that much slower shooting. At least in the hands of a well-trained soldier.

From what I understand, contemporaries thought rifles were slower to load than smoothbores… who I would think would have the final word on this.

From what I understand, the lead ball was actually large enough to tough the rifling, so had to be driven in, particularly with a patch. I know that a patch on a smoothbore ball can also increase accuracy--something that probably wasn't lost on skimrishers.

The lead ball for a Baker rifle was not large enough to touch the rifling and if loaded with no patch or paper would just roll down to the breech in an un-fouled barrel.

It was the patch, either cloth for loose balls, or cloth, paper or both combined in a cartridge, that engaged the rifling.

The lead ball for a Baker rifle was not large enough to touch the rifling and if loaded with no patch or paper would just roll down to the breech in an un-fouled barrel.

Major:
"Well, hat's what I heard…" Thank you for setting me straight on that.

Then again, that doesn't explain why everyone from Scharnhorst to Kincaid believed the rifle required significantly more time [approaching twice as long]compared to a smoothbore.

The Royal Warrant of 1798 stipulated 36 cartridges for the Pouch and reiterated the 24-round Magazine for active service (TMP.enfant perdus)

Okay, 60 shots. 2 shots a minute. 30 minutes of a firefight and the musket is just something to hold that pointy thing on the end. Might they fight all day without getting more ammo? Why should the reload rate be all that critical?

Because in the firefight most fire would be blind due to smoke and then it is volume of fire that matters. Once in range and the smoke obscuring, getting that second round fired 30 seconds quicker might provide the only chance to shoot again before they are onto you.

Then again, that doesn't explain why everyone from Scharnhorst to Kincaid believed the rifle required significantly more time [approaching twice as long]compared to a smoothbore.

It does take longer to load a rifle, particularly for someone who has only been handed the thing a couple weeks earlier. Especially if you do actually need to hammer the ball in, but apparently that wasn't an issue for the Baker Rifle.

Someone who shoots with the thing all the time can reload much faster. It's largely a function of training and/or practice, not so much a technical problem. Like how the US military has just about given up on massed automatic rifle fire now that they've gotten the training figured out.

Someone who shoots with the thing all the time can reload much faster. It's largely a function of training and/or practice, not so much a technical problem.

If that is the case, then perhaps Scharnhorst was thinking of the lowest common denominator for an entire army when he figured the fire rate was rifle to smoothbore 1:2.

Fire from a veteran rifleman would then be at the same rate, but far more accurate than French skirmishers armed with smoothbores.

If that is the case, then perhaps Scharnhorst was thinking of the lowest common denominator for an entire army when he figured the fire rate was rifle to smoothbore 1:2.

Probably.

It took the US Army a long time to get the troops to do single aimed shots again.