GDG- Battle between the Farm Lanes

[James Cameron]

<< I contend that the subject of buck-and-ball ammunition and its impact 
upon
the use of smoothbore muskets has never been adequately explored, the 
writings
of Joe Bilby coming closest to doing justice to the topic.  I know that the
12th NJ used such ammunition in repelling the PPT Charge and IIRC some other
unit(s) used it down at the Wheatfield, but I would love to see a considered
analysis comparing the effectiveness of smoothbores firing buck-and-ball at 
close
range (say, less than 100 or perhaps 50 yards) with that of rifle-muskets
shooting standard Minie balls.  If you examine the records of Federal 
smoothbore
ammunition procurement during the War, you find that more buck-and-ball
ammunition was produced than simple round balls, and I wonder if the same 
was true of
Confederate supply.

Bruce Trinque  >>

Firing tests were conducted at Washington Arsenal in February, 1860 
comparing various arms including .58 and .69 rifled muskets, .69 smoothbores 
(with both single ball loads and buck & ball), and several different 
breachloaders including the Sharps, Merrill, Maynard, Smith, and Burnside. 
The tests were conducted at ranges from 100 to 500 yards.  Fire was by 
volley, by file (10 men firing), as skirmishers, and from a rest.   The 
targets were 10 feet square, constucted of one inch pine boards.  The test 
results, which include drawings of the targets, are in the Ordnance Dept 
records at the National archives.  They are reproduced in Claude Fuller's 
book, "The Rifles Musket", one of the standard reference works of the US 
arms collecting field.

The test results and report are lengthy, with numerous tables comparing 
accuracy at different ranges and by type of fire, so I can't go into them in 
any depth.  As regards .69 smoothbore muskets, however, the following is 
some representative data:

100 yards.  Single round ball only.  10 men firing by volley, total 50 
shots, 37 hits on 10x10 target.  Hits widely dispersed on target.  Firing by 
file was about the same, 38 hits, but fire as skirmishers increased it to 
43, with a tighter grouping toward the center of the target.

At 200 yards, same criteria as above, 18 out of 50 hits by volley, 20 by 
file, and 24 out of 50 firing as skirmishers.  Here, however, firing as 
skirmishers didn't seem to reduce the spread any.  The hits are widely 
distributed over the 10x10 target area.  I'd estimate that no more than half 
the hits on the target would have represented a potential hit on an enemy 
soldier standing in line of battle.  Against enemy skirmishers, a hit would 
be almost entirely a matter of luck.

At 300 yards, 7 hits out of 50 by volley, 9 by file, 7 firing as 
skirmishers.  The weapon is esentially ineffective.

The slight differences in number of hits using different types of fire 
reflect the fact that firing by volley, a man would pull the trigger on 
command, regardless of how well he had his musket aimed.  Firing by file, 
he's have a bit more control over the timing of his own show, and as a 
skirmisher, the most time to take deliberate aim.

Looking now at buck & ball, using the same targets, number of men firing, 
and types of fire:

100 yards, by volley, 36 out of 50 balls on target, plus 79 out of 150 
buckshot.  By file, 35 balls and 82 buckshot, and as skirmishers, 31 balls 
and 84 buckshot.  Here, interestingly, there's little to choose between the 
different methods of fire in terms of number of hits, and, firing as 
skirmishers doesn't appear to have tightened the spread much if at all.  I 
suspect the nature of the buck & ball load may have had some effect on the 
ballistics of the individual projectiles, but that's just my speculation.

At 200 yards:  By volley, 18 balls hit out of 50, plus 31 buckshot.  Fired 
by file, 22 balls and 23 buckshot, and as skirmishers, 20 balls and 19 
buckshot.  The report indicates, however, that of the buckshot striking the 
target, not all of them were able to penetrate the pine boards.  What this 
shows is that the relatively small buckshot, at .31 caliber only the size of 
very small pistol balls (.31 was a popular size for "pocket pistols" of the 
day) lost velocity and energy rapidly.  For this reason, buck and ball loads 
were not tested or evaluated beyond 200 yards.

The report on the tests stated, "The effect of ball and buck-shot, fired 
from the smooth bored musket, can only be calculated on within the range of 
200 yards, and even at that close range, it is believed that a greater 
effect will be given by the much greater accuracy and weight of the 
elongated expanding ball (i.e. the minie ball , fired from the rifled 
musket, than by the scattering over a greater space of many buck-shot, 
several of which might strike a man, not in a vital part, without even 
disabling him."

Purely on a smoothbore to smoothbore comparison, at 100 yards buck & ball 
somewhat more than trippled the number of projectiles striking the target 
area.  This would certainly increase the likely number of hits, even if many 
of them would be by smaller, less deadly projectiles.  Some men hit by a 
buckshot and only lightly might well stay in the fight, but I suspect most, 
even if not fully disabled, would consider themselves legitimately wounded 
and able to "show blood", and entitled to honorably head for the rear.  At 
200 yards, the buckshot is more or less doubling the projectiles on target, 
but the light buckshot is rapidly running out of steam.  Beyond 200 yards, 
the smoothbores rapidly loose effectiveness, no matter which kind of ammo is 
being used.

What very interesting in looking over the test targets, is that at 100 yards 
volley fire from a .58 rifles musket put 48 out of 50 shots on target. 
That's better than the 36 or 37 by the smoothbores, but not drastically so, 
and the actual target shows the hits dispersed over the 10x10 target as 
widely as the shoots from the smoothbores.  At 200 and 300 yards, the number 
of hits continues to be better than the smoothbores, but the individual 
shots are still all over the place.  Fired from a rest, the rifled muskets 
do fine, as might be expected, but what the results show is that most troops 
were rather poor shots firing standing (offhand), and trying to do so under 
battle line conditions made things even worse.   That's why I believe that 
troops on the line of battle (that is, not acting as skirmishers) armed with 
smoothbores, at normal musketry ranges of up to about 250 yards, were not 
necessarily at all that great a disadvantage against troops armed with 
rifles.  It's also why, skirmishing aside, commanders didn't seem to make 
any real distinction, in terms of tactical employment, between smoothbore 
and rifle musket armed regiments.  In many ways, given how battles were 
fought, a musket was a musket, rifled or not.

Jim Cameron