Talk:Rifled musket

misnomer

Rifled Musket is a misnomer. A Musket by definition is a smoothbore weapon.1 So there can be no such thing as a rifled musket.

1.musket. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/musket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrection

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; request malformed and lacking consensus — æk^Talk 01:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Rifled musket → Rifled barrel — At the first line at the Musket article it states: "A musket is a muzzle-loaded, smooth bore long gun" somewhat further however, it states that the final muskets were equipped with "rifling". This is untrue, as it states that is was a smooth bore weapon. Rather, it think the writer meant that the bullets had a stabilising spin, which was done using the minié bullet; however the barrel itself was still smooth (not rifled). In the rifled musket article this same incorrection returns by making it sound like the minié ball required rifling of the barrel; this is not so, it was simply shot from a conventional smooth bore rifle. Please correct this, and also change the rifled musket page accordingly. It should be aligned with a rifled barrel article, or (even better), the rifled musket page is best moved to rifled barrel and a new article is made stabilising-spin balls incompassing the minié bullet.

Finally, perhaps it can be mentioned that muskets had the propellant mixture (gunpowder) and the metal ball seperated, and these needed to be introduced seperatly when loading the musket.

KVDP (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close you cannot move two articles to the same location, two RMs that this nominator made sequentially, one after the other. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

KVDP - If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Minié ball was fired out of smooth bore muskets. This is not true. Minié balls were generally fired out of rifled muskets. The first U.S. weapons to fire the Minié ball were the Springfield Model 1840 and 1842 muskets. These were originally produced as smooth bore muskets, but many were modified to have their barrels rifled specifically so that they could use the Minié ball. Later rifles like the British Model 1853 Enfield and the Springfield Models 1855 and 1861 were all produced with rifled barrels. "The complete idiot's guide to the Civil War" By Alan Axelrod is one of many cites that explains how the Minié ball was used in conjunction with rifling. I can provide many, many more cites if you still don't believe me. I also happen to own an 1853 Enfield and believe me, it's rifled.

The whole point behind the Minié ball is its expanding skirt. This grips the rifling of the barrel which imparts a spin to the round, resulting in greater stability. If you fire a Minié ball from a smooth bore rifle, the Minié ball is not going to spin. It is going to tumble, and being oblong and having the skirt on one end, it's going to be even less aerodynamic than a round ball. I'm not aware of any mass produced musket that used Minié ball ammunition with a smooth bore barrel.

Rifled muskets are a specific type of weapon. While technically they are rifles (and technically the term "rifled musket" is a bit of a misnomer), the term was used by folks like the U.S. Ordinance Division to indicate a rifle with the same characteristics as the smooth bore musket that it replaced. This is explained in the article, and perhaps was a bit clearer before the article was edited and parts were re-arranged. Since this term does refer to a specific type of weapon, I don't see the point of moving the article or renaming it.

Your last suggestion (propellant separate) is a good one. I'll go ahead and add that to the article. Engineer comp geek (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As Engineer comp geek says the term rifled musket might be technically incorrect, but it's a familiar term used since the invention of the rifled barrel and we can't change history now. NtheP (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious unreferenced statements

Muskets had to be long enough for the muzzles of the rear rank’s muskets to project well forward of the faces of the front rank. The muzzle flash of such weapons is formidable - to have one going off inches away from a soldier’s face would have been at least distracting, at worst physically dangerous... Since they weren’t fired over other men’s shoulders military rifles could be much shorter than muskets—Surely the barrel length is dictated by the desired muzzle velocity, and is nothing to do with the comfort of the front rank. When firing in three ranks the barrel length would make little difference, and the muzzle flash is directed forward. These statements should come out unless supported by citations.

Less sure about this one, but aren't the problems of fouling more to do with loss of performance than physical difficulty in loading, with any reduction in rate of fire being due to the need for cleaning? Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

it's not only muzzle velocity but accuracy. A rifled barrel requires less length for the same degree of accuracy as an equally sized bore musket. Fouling causes problems with both performance and rate of fire. From personal experience I can testify that there's a lot more effort in loading a muzzle loader where the barrel is fouled and the risk of misfire is increased. I agree with you that these statements should come out as misleading in their reasoning although the conclusion about the effect of muzzle flash I would agree with. Someone elses muzzle flash a few inches from your head is disconcerting :-) NtheP (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Barrel length only increases muzzle velocity up to a certain point - depending on calibre etc - much shorter than you might think (for a .22 only about 18 inches according to:http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammunition/stmach2_032706/.) After that the friction of the longer barrel begins to cancel out the extra acceleration, so a few inches more or less make no significant difference to the muzzle velocity. If the barrel gets really long the bullet actually starts to slow down before it reaches the muzzle. The Enfield rifles used by the British Rifle regiments were the shorter 2-band version, not the 3 band used by the line infantry. Rifles were considerably shorter than muskets, but not because they wanted to achieve low muzzle velocity. Anyone who shoots them at targets will tell you the two-bands are most accurate. So the full length "rifle muskets" of the line infantry were unnecessarily long for reasons other than velocity and accuracy. Think about it - what could those reasons be? If this article is to explain the apparent anomaly of the "rifle musket" it needs to answer that question. Try standing in front of someone shooting a full bore black powder longarm over your shoulder. Paul J Williams (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul J Williams (talk • contribs) 10:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up Engineer comp geek. In a NGC documentary I saw, a schematic was shown indicating the opposite. However, reading your info, I believe that your are right instead and the documentary needs an update. I however still don't quite understand why this Minié ball then needed to be made, regular balls simply follow the spin of the rifling, hereby already improving their accuracy.

KVDP (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved your comment out of the above section (see the note about not editing that section).

The problem with the round ball or even other conical bullets of the time is that they have to fit tightly into the barrel so that they grip the rifling and spin on the way out. This works fine for the first few shots, but after that, the black powder fouls the barrel, making the weapon harder and harder to load.

The minie ball is a conical bullet with an expanding skirt. You can make it smaller in diameter so that it easily fits down the barrel even after the barrel is all fouled up with black powder residue, but the expanding skirt means that it will still grab the rifling and get a good spin. The minie ball therefore gives you the best of both worlds. You get the spin and increased accuracy of a rifle combined with faster loading times comparable to a smooth bore musket. Engineer comp geek (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Muskets with rifling =/= rifled muskets

Since this article isn't terribly well put together, lacking anything of a decent introduction that effectively explains the term, I'll have to ask here. Why is this term exclusive to mid-19th century rifles? Why does it not extend to early 19th century rifles that are essentially muzzle-loading muskets with rifling, such as the Baker rifle? 86.167.244.191 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference already?

As a layman, I came here to learn the difference between a rifled musket and a rifle. There is nothing here that definitively says. Does anyone writing this even know?

It sounds to me that the term "rifled musket" is just a self-contradicting misnomer, and this article should be deleted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.109.15 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to make it more clear. The term "rifled musket" is a misnomer. However, these weapons were historically (and continue to be) referred to as "rifled muskets" or "rifle-muskets". Originally, the term referred to a smooth bore musket that had been rifled, as was commonly done with weapons like the Springfield model 1842. The term was later extended to weapons that followed in the same line of succession. The Springfield model 1842 was a smooth bore musket. If someone came along later and rifled it, then it was a rifled musket. The Springfield model 1855 replaced the Springfield Model 1842, and was also referred to as a rifled musket. The Springfield Model 1861 replaced the Model 1855, and was also referred to as a rifled musket. There was a shorter version of the Springfield model 1855. Since this was not used as a direct replacement for the model 1842, the shorter version was not called a rifled musket. It was called a rifle.

Read over the article now that I've changed it and see if you understand it. Engineer comp geek (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bayonet Casualties

The Wikipedia article on "Bayonets" says that fewer than 1% of battle casualties in the American Civil Wra were from bayonets; I've often heard that only 0.4% were caused by edged weapons altogether. Yet this article says bayonets were responsible for "roughly a third" of casualties..... Isn't that contentious? Paul J Williams (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The "roughly a third" is in the section pertaining to the development of the musket, and refers to the times of older smooth bore muskets (i.e. the Napoleonic era). The better accuracy of the rifled muskets as well as changes in tactics dropped the casualty rate from bayonets down below one percent. I have modified the article to clarify this. Engineer comp geek (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Revolutionary War and War of 1812

• Rifled muskets were used very successfully by Morgan's Riflemen during the American Revolutionary way. They were used to snipe British troops from a longer distance than their smoothbore muskets could reach, a tactic that was unusual during that time period. But even though it was an unusual strategy it was without a doubt a useful one and played a pretty big role in the war. Rifled muskets were also used successfully in the War of 1812 with small groups of riflemen, like Morgan's Riflemen during the war of 1812, exploited the rifles to pick off enemy units from a range without endangering themselves.

The article seems to say that the "Rifled musket" was developed in the 1840s. See also the discussion above. The Morgan's Riflemen article says

• ...[the unit] was equipped with what was then the cutting-edge rifle instead of muskets, allowing superior accuracy at an up to ten times the distance of the typical troops of the day.

@CodaThePortalMaster: can you find a source that talks about the use of rifled muskets in these two wars? Felsic2 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Erm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_the_American_Revolution That says that they used "long guns" and from their description it seems that they were rifled. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_Riflemen, It says that they used "rifles" during the revolutionary war, and unless they were time travelers and used M14s to mow down British troops, I think It's safe to assume that It's referring to rifled muskets. Also, long rifles, which were a type of rifled musket were invented in the 1700's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodaThePortalMaster (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should write articles based on assumptions, especially when it comes to things like this. I'm no expert, but it appears that there are three different things: muskets, rifles, and rifled muskets. If Morgan's Riflemen and other units in the two wars then there should be a source that says so. I suggest looking at the articles you listed and checking their references to see if they mention the use of rifled muskets. Felsic2 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Difference (or lack thereof) between "rifled musket" and "rifle musket"

This edit says categorically that "rifled musket" was only used for muskets that were converted to rifles, and "rifle musket" (without the "d") was only for rifles manufactured as such. I can't find any evidence that this sharp distinction was observed at the time. For example, this HistoryNet article quotes an 1862 letter from a Union soldier discussing the Springfield 1861, a weapon manufactured with rifling, which he refers to as a "rifled musket."

I've reverted that bit to the the previous, less prescriptive text, and also added "rifle-musket" as a third spelling found particularly in British texts. More precise updates are welcome, but should cite sources. Phasma Felis (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Rifled musket not a misnomer. Any discussion of the American experience of the late 18th Century is lacking.

A rifled musket is identical to a smoothbore musket except that the barrel is rifled. It is a muzzle loading long gun. The term "rifle" used separately generally refers to a breech loading long gun or medium gun. The article states that the range was immaterial. That is just plain false. Smooth bore muskets were accurate to about 100 yards. The projectile would be lethal at 300 or perhaps 400 yards but you wouldn't hit what you were aiming at. So smoothbore muskets could be used effectively to those ranges only with massed line firing. Skirmishers were best equipped with the rifled musket as they could sit off at 300 yards and pick off individual targets while no one using a smoothbore could return effective fire. It would have to be returned en masse, which still wouldn't be very effective as the skirmisher would go prone or use some cover. Also, the skirmisher wouldn't be greatly impeded by the black powder smoke since he was widely spaced from his compatriots and firing at will rather than on command. Importantly, rifled muskets took considerably longer to load and were more difficult to use with trainee soldiers. So, smoothbores continued to be used up to and including the Civil War because they were cheaper and because the Union Army in particular had a lot of inexperienced civilians drafted into service. For that reason line tactics continued to be the norm.

    Now, the issue of the American experience includes the circumstances leading to the US Constitution's Second Amendment.  Frontiersmen (this term would include farmers as well as trappers and other lines of work) could not afford not to have rifled muskets as opposed to smoothbores for purposes of subsistence hunting and Indian fighting, and would bear that high cost in order to have one.  Although the Second Amendment does not specifically mention rifled muskets or rifles, that is exactly what is being referred to by "keep and bear arms".  As the US did not much like the idea of standing armies and what they tended to have was not much of one, the country was dependent in extremis on the militias, which consisted of well trained civilians who supplied their own rifled muskets.  In addition, all rifle muskets were registered with the government so that the weapon itself could be drafted if the owner was not in a militia or not able to fight.  How terribly important this is and the reason why it was important enough to lead to that Amendment can be understood by studying the Battle of Saratoga.  The British regulars were equipped with smoothbore muskets as was standard for the time.  The colonial rebels were largely equipped with rifle muskets accurate to 300 yards and wielded by people who in the course of their lives found it necessary to be able to hit targets at such ranges.  Due to the terrain the battle was occurring in artillery was of little if any utility and line tactics were useless against skirmishers who were taking advantage of what cover the terrain offered (which was considerable) who could pick off enemy soldiers at 300 yards while those soldiers could basically do nothing about it in return.  One could make the argument that the Revolutionary War was won by the rifle musket.  As stated earlier, the US was not keen to have a large standing army and it wasn't keen on equipping such a standing army as it had with expensive rifle muskets, the 2nd Amendment made tremendous sense as the defense of the nation was highly dependent on trained civilian militias armed with their own personal rifle muskets.Ealtram (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)