"Rifled Switch in 1848 or did it stay a bore?" Topic

Did most of the soldiers in Italy's war of 1848 use a smooth bore or rifled musket?

I'd be surprised if there were widespread use of rifled muskets anywhere in 1848. It's a bit early for minie-system rifles-there were some precursors but I don't believe they were used much by anyone's military, and friction fit rifles like the two-groove Brunswick were too slow to load to use in large numbers in combat.

I'll look in Pollard and Greener and if I find anything I'll post it later.

Friction-fit rifling systems like the Baker or Brunswick would not have been used by a military in large numbers due to the slowness of loading, particularly after the barrel became fouled. As Greener (W.W. Greener, "The Gun and its Development," 9th Ed., p.624) said: "Thus [smoothbore muzzleloading muskets] were easy to load even when foul; whereas the muzzleloading rifle employed in connection with a close-fitting ball never was, and could not have been, used by troops generally, the force required to push home the bullet rendering its use as a weapon of war almost impossible."

As for expanding bullet systems, of which the minie is the best known…
According to Pollard 1st edition (H.B.C. Pollard, "A History of Firearms," 1st edition reprint 1930) in 1846 the French began generally adopting an expanding bullet system that had an iron spike or anvil in the breech of the rifle. The bullet was forced down on the anvil to expand the bullet so when the rifle was fired the bullet would engage the rifling. This system was superseded very soon by other systems that caused the bullet to expand only when the rifle was fired. I very much doubt this Thonvenin (the inventor) system was adopted by any military outside France and even the French abandoned it very soon. Pollard (1st edition) only says that the French government adopted the Thonvenin system, it says nothing about how many were issued or if they were ever used. In any event the French went to the Minie system within a very few years.

The better known Minie and similar systems replaced the Thonvenin system with the French by the early 1850s and it was adopted by the British about 1851 according to Pollard revised edition 1981 (pretty much a complete rewrite of the original Pollard).

So, IMHO, in 1848 most of the Italians would not have used friction-fit rifles as they weren't really appropriate for such use. I doubt very much the Italians would have used the Thonvenin system as it wasn't adopted outside France, and was quickly abandoned there. And the Italians couldn't have used any of the Minie systems as none had been perfected yet for military use with the Minie bullet being first patented about 1849.

Probably Austrian Jaegers and any Italian units using the same weapons would have been the only ones with rifles, all the old 'ball' type.

" … rendering its use as a weapon of war almost impossible."

Rubbish !!

I think only Austrian Jagers and Sardinian Bersaglieri had rifles, everyone else only muskets.

For general issue, it really took the invention of the Minie ball to get rifled muzzle-loaders into service.

Rifles with close-fitting balls like the Baker or hunting rifles pressed into military service required better-trained troops.

The Italians were still using flintlock smoothbore muskets.

Most Austrian regulars had the new Augustine smoothbore system using an early form of a percussion cap, but not all.

Please define "friction fit" rifles. Technically, until the hollow based conical bullet, all rifles are friction fit. The Brunswick fired a belted ball where the "belt" fitted into matching slots gut into the barrel. At first the ball had two "belts", then it went to one belt. Not the most successful design. The Baker, and all other rifles of that period were hardly useless firearm.

The Baker, and all other rifles of that period were hardly useless firearm.

But neither were they considered to be good enough for general issue.

Rifles needed to be issued to well-trained troops because they needed extra care&feeding, most 18C and early 19C armies were unwilling to train all their soldiers to the degree required.

Yes, but to say "rendering its use as a weapon of war almost impossible" is also incorrect. One may as well say that until the development of 7.92 Kurz round of the Sturmgewehr 44 the machinegun wasn't considered good enough for general issue. Because of the extra training etc. the .50 sniper rifles are are useless since they can't be issued to all troops.

If the pre minie-ball rifle was useless why did so many nations build rifles and then go to the trouble of raising and training troops to use them? Scharndorst even contemplated a general issue of rifles but the cost was too prohibitive.