"How long did it take a rifleman to reload a muzzleloader?" Topic
26 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Firearms Message Board Back to the War of 1812 Message Board Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Action Log
20 May 2019 5:52 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Crossposted to Firearms board
Areas of InterestRenaissance 18th Century Napoleonic American Civil War 19th Century World War One World War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Nick Stern | 23 Feb 2018 7:47 p.m. PST |
I recently played a Napoleonic skirmish game using Fistful of Lead, Horse and Musket variant. The rules were originally written for old west gunfights so reloading was handled in a simple, automatic way. The rules for the earlier, muzzle loading period stress the need to keep part of one's unit loaded at all times. In the rules, which allow each figure to take two actions per turn, reloading a smoothbore takes two actions, a full turn. What troubled me and the other players was the penalty riflemen, in this case the 95th Rifles, could suffer if they rolled poorly after their initial two actions. They had a 50% chance of reloading taking a *further* two actions. Did rifles really take twice as long to reload? I recall reading that riflemen carried smaller bore musket balls to use in an emergency, so maybe it makes sense. I feel that the long reloading time slowed down the game and induced the frustrated player who ran the Rifles to give up on reloading and charge into combat. I really like the base rules for one man, one figure skirmishes, but something seemed to be broken when using it for the Napoleonic period. Yes, I know all about Sharp Practice, but it's not my cup of tea. Next time I will try allowing smoothbores to reload using one action and rifles two, without the roll to see if it takes more time. |
FABET01 | 23 Feb 2018 8:22 p.m. PST |
Yes. With a rifled barrel, the ball has to rotate along the groves to go down the barrel where in a smooth bore the ball can go pretty much straight down. That's why the smaller round works in emergency. It doesn't fit the grooves so tightly. But you lose range and accuracy with that smaller round. British Infantry were expected to be able to fire the Brown Bess every 15 seconds. During the AWI it's been noted that they could take take advantage of the longer loading time of the Colonial Riflemen to close in with bayonet. All shooters would slow down after after the initial volleys because of fatigue and fouling weapons. So 3 rounds a minute for line muskets and 2 for rifles wouldn't be unreasonable approximation over the course of a fight. |
79thPA | 23 Feb 2018 9:28 p.m. PST |
A rifle should take longer than a smooth bore, especially after the rifling starts to get fouled. |
rmaker | 23 Feb 2018 9:42 p.m. PST |
It depended on the rifle and the loading system. Patched ball (aka Pflasterkugel) must be pushed down the barrel. The Baker system provided sub-caliber balls that didn't take the rifling at all. These could be loaded as quickly as a smoothbore round, but gave up some power due to the windage. No more than the musket did, but rifle charges tended to be smaller, so it was noticeable. A Jaegerstuetzer had a ball slightly smaller than the bore caliber. The drill was to ram down the ball, then tap the end of the ramrod with the little hammer to make the ball squish out a little and take the rifling. These weapons also tended to use loose powder and ball rather than cartridges, which increased loading time, but the short barrel helped some. Given the tradeoffs and the fact that riflemen were specialists who tended to be more careful in loading than line musketeers, a two-to-one rate of fire advantage for the musket is about right. During the AWI it's been noted that they could take take advantage of the longer loading time of the Colonial Riflemen to close in with bayonet. Since fewer than two percent of the Colonials had rifles, this is nonsense. The real problem was that, until well into the war (and all the way through for militia) the Colonials didn't have bayonets themselves. |
attilathepun47 | 23 Feb 2018 10:08 p.m. PST |
In terms of absolute time, it could vary a great deal according to individual proficiency. Daniel Boone and at least one other true frontiersman trained themselves to be able to reload a long rifle in one minute while at a dead run. Obviously they could do it a great deal faster when standing still. However, about one round a minute when not doing much moving would probably be about right for the average trained rifleman (at least until fouling started to build up), but much more if not well practiced. |
von Winterfeldt | 24 Feb 2018 7:41 a.m. PST |
it would depend on the ammuniton, of which a rifleman had three patch and ball with seperate powder measure for barrel and priming powder, using a loading hammer and starter a cartridge with pre patched ball a cartridge with undersized ball to be loaded as quickly as a smoothbore musket |
robert piepenbrink | 24 Feb 2018 8:55 a.m. PST |
Let us never forget Timothy Murphy with his double-barreled rifle. Many an Indian and redcoat tried to close after the first shot and before he reloaded. It never worked out for them. rmaker, not as much nonsense as you think, since "the average varies" and riflemen tended to be concentrated in units. But I notice you only hear those stories about 1776. By 1777, the Continentals had learned and Morgan and his people took suitable precautions. |
Yankee Tiger | 24 Feb 2018 11:26 a.m. PST |
All great comments (and an enjoyable thread!) My first experience firing my rifle was roughly about 6-7 shots before it needed a cleaning. Even after some seasoning (I used a mixture of bees wax and tallow for lubricating and the bore seasoned like a cast iron skillet) it still needed a cleaning after about 8-9 shots. I think (and more like than not, I'm wrong!) you'd have two levels of "riflemen." The average fellow living on the frontier, his rifle was used as a tool for hunting and defending and would (my uneducated guess) probably load at a little slower rate than the frontiersman (Lewis Wetzel, Daniel Boone, Simon Girty, Simon Kenton, Hamilton Kerr, etc.) who depended on their rifle for their livelihood. Both would be practiced and familiar with their weapons. A somewhat forgotten character on the Colonial era frontier who perfected loading on the run was Lewis Wetzel: link A good friend of mine and a friend of his did some historical experimentation with loading on the run about 20 years ago (give or take…) based on stories of the frontiersmen loading on the run. Per sources and available documentation (first hand interviews), Curt and Mark determined that several factors came into play. First, using a powder horn and measure, you get the accurate load for your rifle. Experience and familiarity with firing would allow you to be able to approximately gauge the amount of time to pour X grains of powder. Think of an experienced bartender pouring a drink. Second was the use of undersized rifle balls. For example, a rifle of .54 caliber would typically fire a ball under .54 caliber. For sake of discussion, let's say a .53 caliber ball. The excess .01 spacing would be taken up by patching. That would give the "grip" to the rifling. Using a ball of even smaller caliber, .52, and a thicker patch, .02, would basically accomplish the same thing. For a frontiersman like Wetzel or Boone, a trick was to speed load skipping the patch and keeping a spare rifle ball (or two or three) in their mouth. "Spit" the ball down the barrel. One account of an old frontiersman had him carrying them between his fingers (at the base) and doing so for so long that the indentations were "worn" into his skin. Third, and lastly, what Curt referred to as the "Ranger Stomp" trick. If memory serves me correctly, he discovered this as being a tactic used by Roger's Rangers in the 1750's. When loading the flintlock, the pan is typically primed first, then the powder goes into the muzzle. If you enlarge the touch hole (the hole leading from the pan to the breech of the barrel), you can eliminate loading the pan. Pour your powder in the barrel and "thump" the buttstock on the ground. Powder should kick into the pan. This allowed a Wetzel to be able to load on the run. If I remember Curt's video of it, it was just around 40+ seconds to fire, run and reload before firing again. Mark used their research to help out as a consultant on the movie, Last of the Mohicans. Ok, back to my regularly scheduled lurking. |
Garde de Paris | 24 Feb 2018 12:30 p.m. PST |
Yankee Tigers posting would support my old group's perception that riflemen could firm once in three turns, Musketeers every turn. We mounted riflemen 3 to a stand, and that stand fired one figure per turn, but 18" or more. Musketeers fired 3 men per 3-man stand, every turn – 6" to 12" depending on the game. GdeP |
thomalley | 24 Feb 2018 4:23 p.m. PST |
French during the Revolution era (1790-95) decide on the smooth-bore for their skirmishers. The came to the conclusion that the rifle was twice as accurate but half as slow as the musket. But with the musket, anyone could be a skirmisher, where as rifle armed troops need special training, not to mention the special weapon. That was from "Bayonets of the Republic", which I just finished last week. |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 24 Feb 2018 7:41 p.m. PST |
I own a 45 caliber black powder flintlock Kentucky long rifle. When I was much younger and very much into black powder, me and a couple of buddies explored what it was like to be in a firing line. And how fast we were able to 'speed load' our weapons. My friends almost killed themselves with laughter when my best time was 80 seconds. Theirs? 15 seconds: put ball in mouth, load powder, spit ball into muzzle and ground thump. Percussion cap. Fire. About 15 seconds. BTW, firing in a line during a snow flurry was very exciting. Couldn't see squat. |
attilathepun47 | 24 Feb 2018 9:38 p.m. PST |
@Yankee Tiger, Lewis Wetzel was the "other frontiersman," I had in mind. I just couldn't remember his name and did not have my reference source available. I wonder how many rifle balls got swallowed in practicing loading on the run? |
von Winterfeldt | 25 Feb 2018 12:31 a.m. PST |
"Theirs? 15 seconds: put ball in mouth, load powder, spit ball into muzzle and ground thump. Percussion cap. Fire. About 15 seconds. " so the ball must have been quite smaller than the rifle bore, could be compared to the cartridges for quick firing for the rifle units in the Napoleonic time, firing however would be then without the benefit from field and grooves and reduced to firing a smooth bore musket |
deadhead | 25 Feb 2018 3:46 a.m. PST |
and presumably a Baker, used as a smooth bore, was even less accurate than a Brown Bess….as the barrel is so much shorter. I guess this trick was only used for emergencies, by definition at close range! |
42flanker | 25 Feb 2018 4:32 a.m. PST |
'Percussion cap'…now that might be seen as cheating |
Prince of Essling | 25 Feb 2018 10:01 a.m. PST |
Gerhard von Scharnhost "Uber die Wirkung des Feuergewehrs" published Berlin 1813 link For non-German readers, Bill Leeson translated this as "Results of Artillery and Infantry Guns in Trials" Hemel Hempstead UK 1992. It covers field trials of various nations weaponary in "ideal conditions". Scharnhost noted that the fastest musket shooters took never less than 7 minutes and the slowest up to 14 minutes to fire 20 rounds! |
attilathepun47 | 25 Feb 2018 10:15 a.m. PST |
I have done a fair bit of shooting with a replica percussion rifle, and I am not so sure that percussion caps did much to speed up the loading process. The caps used on civilian rifles were much smaller than those used on military muskets. Trying to get hold of one and place it on the nipple without dropping it is the most annoying part of the loading process. There are a few types of cap-loading devices that are supposed to ease the process, but the ones I tried were not reliable, frequently letting caps turn over sideways. The main benefit of the percussion cap was in greatly reducing the number of misfires. |
Kevin in Albuquerque | 25 Feb 2018 7:55 p.m. PST |
"Percussion cap'…now that might be seen as cheating" I thought so too, at the time. Now, it's a funny memory. "There are a few types of cap-loading devices that are supposed to ease the process…" They used a brass thingee that was spring loaded and loaded one cap at a time. They all missed the targets, 24" circles at 20 yds. I didn't. Heh. With the snow and smoke it was a little hard to tell, so we had to walk up to the darn things. |
McLaddie | 25 Feb 2018 10:26 p.m. PST |
Scharnhorst carried out multiple tests timing the firing rate of smoothbore muskets and rifles in 1811…they were both of Prussian make. He determined that musket could get off two shots for every one from a rifle. However, the rifle hit twice as often. Scharnhorst actually considered having all infantry armed with rifles… but jetisoned the idea because of cost [rifled muskets were 50% more expensive and required more training.] |
von Winterfeldt | 26 Feb 2018 6:51 a.m. PST |
of course Scharnhorst did not test the emergency ammunition |
Major Snort | 26 Feb 2018 4:13 p.m. PST |
As far as the Baker rifle is concerned, there is a common misconception about the issued ammunition. Originally, loose balls and patches were issued for precision shooting and also balls contained in paper cartridges for rapid loading. This wasn't peculiar to the Baker. When de Rottenburg wrote the regulations for riflemen in 1798, prior to the introduction of the Baker rifle, the same system existed and is well described. During the Napoleonic Wars, the loose balls and patches were phased out from around 1809 and most ammunition was issued in cartridge form. Some individuals may have persisted with loose balls and patches, but eventually this practice disappeared completely. Some officers complained about this, but to no avail. Fiddling around with flasks of loose powder was considered to be dangerous in action. Paper cartridges were not emergency ammunition for a Baker Rifle. The cartridge ammunition was produced in two types. One had a cloth patch wrapped around the ball within the cartridge and the other had a slightly larger ball with no patch. Some rifle battalions preferred one and some the other and there was a request after the wars to consult with rifle battalion officers to decide which was the best type in order to standardise and remove the need to carry two forms of cartridges in the ammunition wagons. When loading ball cartridge, the ball was not separated from the paper and was rammed down within its wrapper, with the empty tail of the cartridge that had contained the powder going down first (the same applied to musket cartridges). When rammed down, the paper formed a wad under the ball and also surrounded the ball and engaged the rifling. This was not as effective as a tightly-fitting cloth-patched ball, but did not reduce the rifle to the effectiveness of a smoothbore. Neither British riflemen nor line infantry armed with muskets spat lead balls down the barrels of their guns as seen in Sharpe. Line infantry were noted on several occasions putting the cartridge into the muzzle and stamping the butt on the ground to circumvent the use of the ramrod, with consequent poor results. This was referred to by more than one British eyewitness as the "French skirmishers' method of loading". Edward Cotton noted at Waterloo: "Comparatively few of the enemy's cavalry were destroyed, even by our musketry. This might be attributed to many of our infantry, when hard-pressed, adopting the French skirmishers' method of loading, i.e. after priming, shaking the rest of the powder into the barrel, dropping the ball after it, and then giving the butt a rap or two on the ground, which, from the rain, was quite soft. The ball, in consequence, not being rammed down to confine the powder, came out at times nearly harmless." This was considered to be a bad practice. By latter stages of the Napoleonic Wars, any rapid fire with muskets was seen to be bad practice within the British army. Experiments during the early 1800s had shown that the maximum rate of fire for a well practised individual infantryman in the British army was around three rounds per minute, and it was considered that this could only be achieved by individuals not part of a close order formation. John Mitchell, an officer of the 1st Regiment summed this up nicely after the wars: "Tacticians talk, no doubt, about firing four or five shots in a minute. Miserable puerilities, not worth discussing. With ball cartridges three shots may perhaps be fired per minute, but the more there is of such fire, the less will be the effect produced." Fire was considered to be far more effective when delivered slowly and deliberately. |
McLaddie | 26 Feb 2018 8:59 p.m. PST |
of course Scharnhorst did not test the emergency ammunition. Of course, that wasn't the point of the tests and the loading speed with that ammo would have been about the same as the smoothbores. |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Feb 2018 12:12 a.m. PST |
rapid fire was coming out of fashion after the 7YW – drill regulations confirm such pratise, like in the French one of 1791 after firing you had to keeping pointed the musket onto the target and only when the command load was given you were bringing the musket into loading position, this was to prevent air shot, when in the older quick firing tendencies, the soldier was already bringing the musket down at the flash of the pan. |
Major Bloodnok | 21 Mar 2018 2:53 a.m. PST |
A British manual from 1713 describes, "for fast and furious firings", loading without the paper and thumping the butt to get the ball home. There is a description of a British Sgt. at Waterloo doing the same thing, and an above posting describing French skirmishers doing the same trick. I suspect this trick was around from the moment firearms became safe enough to have working shortcuts until the rifled musket took over. Accuracy would suffer. but I suspect that it comes into use when getting that additional shot of makes a difference. |
LORDGHEE | 21 Mar 2018 10:52 a.m. PST |
|
attilathepun47 | 21 Mar 2018 1:30 p.m. PST |
@Major Bloodnok, Hmmm, very interesting that the concept of tap loading is documented that far back. As far as I know, the Swedish army introduced the use of paper cartridges under Gustavus Adolphus during the Thirty Years War, so the practice would have been irrelevant before that. |
|