GDG- Weapon Trajectory

[James Cameron]

<< The  comparison would have to be to a round ball of like diameter, i.e., 
.58,
not  to a .69 musket ball.


No, the comparison of the .69 round musket ball to the .58 Minie bullet is
appropriate because those were the rounds in common use.  Although there 
were
indeed some .69 caliber rifle-muskets, they were not the standard issue.

Bruce  Trinque
Amston, CT  >>

Bruce,

That wasn't my point.  The relative numbers of each type in use has nothing 
to do with comprisions of round ball versus minie ball weight for a given 
caliber.  You can't compare a .58 minie ball to a .69 round ball and say the 
minie isn't all that much heavier than a round musket ball.  You need to 
compare the .69 round ball to a .69 minie ball, which, at a typical 730 
grains, was much heavier compared to a .69 round ball than a 500 grain .58 
minie ball was.

You are correct that the lower powder charges used in rifled muskets firing 
minie balls, compared to the relatively large charges used in a smoothbore, 
resulted in lower muzzle velocities.  Sticking to the .69 caliber weapons, a 
.69 rifle musket normally used a 70 grain powder charge.  That simply isn't 
going to launch a 730 grain minie ball as fast as 110 grains of powder is 
going to propel a round ball weighing several hundred grains less.

The problem was, as I said in a prior post, that it wasn't simply a matter 
of increasing the powder charge for the minie ball cartridges.  Rifles, and 
muzzle loaders in particular, are very sensitive to changes in powder 
charge.  Adding more powder would increase the muzzle velocity, but beyond a 
relatively narrow range, only at the expense of accuracy.  An additional 
concern was recoil.  All things being equal, a heavier projectile will 
"kick" harder than a lighter one.  Combine a heavy minie ball with a larger 
powder charge, and you risk a weapon with too much recoil for the average 
soldier to fire effectively.

Jim Cameron