Even with a fairly modern rifle and cartridge, the bayonet affects harmonics, and thus accuracy. The Soviet Union sighted their Mosin Nagant 91/30 rifles with the bayonet on. Many of these rifles were available on the surplus market, and I have three. With the bayonet off, the rifle hits about 2 inches high at 100 yards. With the bayonet attached, it is spot on.
When I was going through Ft. Benning Infantry Basic Training and Infantry School in 1986 I did bayonet training. It was only emphasized during Infantry School for a week about 4 days along with other subjects. In the morning for introduction we did rifle PT. The next few days was rifle PT again with bayonets and basic maneuvers. The fun part was more bayonet drills and the "Pugil Sticks". This is where we can beat the shit out of each other. The last day was the Bayonet Assault Course. It was a 1/4 mile long course in we ran in 10 lanes and engaged and stabbed rubber tires and sand bags. I had fun with it that I came in first. Then my Drill Sergeants made me do it again with the rest of my platoon followed me and watched as I ran and dodged obstacles and do a good execution of stabs, parry, butt strokes, smash. At the end I got a round of applause from my guys from pouring sweat. My Drill Sergeants gave me a Snickers Bar for my reward. That was my memory from 34 years ago. My first combat in Panama 1989-90 I was issued a bayonet even though I was a machinegunner. Hey they issued it to anyone who wanted one. In Iraq I brought my own M-7 Bayonet which I got from the Army when it was replaced by the M-9. Good to have a knife bayonet for general purpose.
Capandball is among a small group of amateur historians who provide us with an accurate analysis of past events. I like the practical aspect of the work being done. No Fake News here! Cheers!
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Lol I was about to say its faulty at best and insulting at worst to label him an amateur. He is literally a college professor of history! How much more credentials do you need before you can shake the amateur label idk?
You are a seriously good shot, doing all the motions of reloading, aiming only for a second, and still getting groups like that. You really do the men of history justice.
I read several years ago a batch of Letters from the Crimean War, that a friend of mine found in a secret compartment of a old Desk, that he was restoring for a Client of his. In one of the letters to his father he described the "devastating" power of the Minie. According to this letter, not only the first Russian Soldier in the Column was killed or maimed, also the one behind and sometimes even a third was killed or wounded. Unfortunately we didn't think to make copies of those letters, but they made that Desk so much more Valuable at the Auction in Cape Town.
The main reason for the similarity in causalities from say the European War of 1812 and the US Civil War was more because Disease was the biggest killer in both. In terms of battlefield casualties there are a few things to consider, though the casualties were similar overall, I don't think they could be counted the same. 1. As you mentioned, Less people were shot in earlier wars with the flintlock smoothbores, but alot more bayonet casualties. Wheras in the Civil War, hardly anyone received bayonet wounds. Most were shot. 2.Every casualty in the US Civil War was an American, technically at least. 3. In older wars, Soldiers tended to be well trained for many months or even years in very strict drill. Which helped componsate for the problems with the weapons. Wheras in the US Civil War, the weapons improved but training was lacking, as many troops had to be quickly recruited and sent into battle, leaving little time for training. There are many accounts, especially as the war progresses, that a regiment did not fire their muskets at all until the battle. 4. Adding to the previous point, the lesser trained soldiers of the Civil War also tended to be young boys, 17 to 25 roughly, Knowing they're shooting their own people, Many were too frightened, or reluctant to shoot what they considered their peers. Many would shoot over their heads. Or become so frightened that they would often not load properly, forgetting the percussion cap, or forgetting to return the ramrod, so they couldn't load more shots. In Gettysburg alone, 10 000+ rifles were found with more than one load in them. So while the weapons were better, the poor trained soldier limited the advantage. 5. Regiment sizes were smaller especially as the war progressed as both sides simply didn't have the men needed to replace losses in the ranks. Usually a Civil War era wound was more likely to leave you maimed and thus unfit to fight anymore. Smoothbore wounds tended to be less devestating, more soldiers could be successfully treated to fight again. Also not suffering as much from manpower shortages. If Regiment sizes during the Civil War remained at high levels like 1000 to 700 men rather than the 300 to 500 Men which was the typical regimental strength, Casualities would have been significantly higher. the fact that smaller regimental sizes were still able to match casualities from previous wars is frankly... tragic. Basically 1812 had more men, professionally trained and diciplined, wheras the US Civil War, you had men who were poorly but quickly trained with smaller regiment strengths. Casualty rates in Civil War era battles were higher than 20%, more like 30 to 60 percent, they would be considered bloodbaths today. I hope this offers some insight.
4. exactly. 99% of the soldiers where untrained in marksmanship and was not trained correctly in actually loading their guns. That is why so many could not manage to load their guns and hit a target. They had not learned to use their sights. Or to judge the range. or to correctly load their guns. When going into combat you fall back in you training. And what they trained each and every day was a set of motions that do not result in a loaded gun. Just going true the motions of "load in nine times" do not include the Taking the bullet out of the paper and inserting it. And it don't really include. taking a percussion cap and placing it on the nipple. The experienced soldiers back then where very well drilled... at drill.. But not at actually loading and using their guns.
Thanks for a great exploration of the topic. As a US Marine during the early Vietnam period I trained as a riflemen with both the M-1 and M-14 from Springfield and with the bayonet, and had ancestors who fought in the Civil War. Wonderful job.
Outstanding shooting, sir. Those old rifles have crude sights, and to be able to shoot that well is a testament to your great skill. Thanks for sharing.
I enjoy looking around the edges of the frame at the range and listening to the background sounds to get as much as possible from the vedio as posible.
Amerifat reporting in. Last year after watching some of your videos I decided to invest in a Pietta model 1858 Sheriff revolver and it is now one of my favorite range-toys; people always approach me at the range to ask about what kind of firearm I'm shooting, and a decent conversation typically ensues. Heck, I love cap and ball shooting so much now that I have learned how to make and granularize my own black powder, lead round balls, and flash-paper! Thanks for the inspiration, sir. Please keep it up!
CapandBall makes the most useful and researched 19th century arm videos on UA-cam. He is literally my favourite youtuber, but I hope you upload MORE videos :)
I really like capand ball... but Britsish muzzleloaders is better, since he actually wear the correct uniforms and gear and use the correct drill. (unlike on this channel, where the drill got very little to do with the historical one) ua-cam.com/users/britishmuzzleloaders
In terms of entertainment, I choose capandball. Britishmuzzleloaders is great. But capandball tend to get his hands on more diverse firearms which is very unheard of compared to the more mainstream British service rifles of Rob. Of course, the information he would receive is far less than a British service rifle manual.
@@presidentlouis-napoleonbon8889 You could say cap and ball is a better channel for firearms. Rob is better for putting the firearm in its propper context. Personally, if I want to know about firearms, I go for forgottenweapons... That said, I have followed cap and ball for years. And his focus on East eruopean history is a nice change from the US/british one that is more common.
Sir, thank you for your marvelous experiential archeology in this video as I learned more from you and your methods. Also, I appreciate your products. I love my bayonet as a bacon scuer at the campfire and as a candle holder for nighttime reading. Much obliged!
The psycological effect should not be underestimated. If you look at the casualty rates, cold steel was not an important inflictor of wounds...yet commanders like Napoleon and Jackson regarded the bayonet highly. Mostly because it drove the enemy back. Bullets attack the body, cold steel attacks the spirit.
Bayonets main useage during 18th century wars-as a cooking spit. And pot hanger. My Mosin Nagant M91/30 will shoot dead on to point of aim at 100 yards with a similar bayonet. 8-10 inches high right without it. Another great Vid. You are some fast loader, some NSSA team could sure use you.
Bayonets were not just used to charge at the enemy. They were also used for defense against cavalry instead of pikes. A musket with a bayonet attached, had enough reach to dismount a horseman.
I consider your accuracy and reloading speed to be pretty impressive. I believe the barrel bands on that rifle dampen the barrel harmonics significantly, just like full length bedding a modern rifle. For a demonstration, take a standard tuning fork and strike it against a surface holding it properly, then put your hand around the base of the forks and strike it again.
this is the comment I was looking for. Yes, a tuning fork is an accurate representation of barrel harmonics. every shot fired is equivalent to striking a tuning fork.
Another big advantage, especially with single shot weapons, is prisoner control. Using a bayonet to coerce prisoner movement means you are ready to respond regardless of the state of the weapon being loaded or not. Plus the consequence of being poked with the bayonet acts as a "less lethal" coercion technique where discharging the weapon is unnecessary or inappropriate.
@@pebo8306 Because police, especially in modern times have access to more specialized less-lethal options, I doubt cold steel would ever be considered. A bayonet may be less lethal than a rifle round, but it is also considerably more lethal than pepper spray, tear gas, tasers, etc.. Keep in mind that in the past, "public disorder" events in US history, soldiers armed with mounted bayonets was not uncommon in controlling a crowd. There are photos taken during the Civil Rights Era of US troops brandishing bayonet-mounted M1 Garand rifles to discourage segregationist rioters in Little Rock AR.
@@colbunkmust Yes,they have access to "less lethal options"but the will to use them seems limited.Or how do explain the firing of 7 bullets in a man's back like in the Floyd case recently? But yes,I admit a litlle irony was involved from my side! (Although poking all that BLM seems very tempting to many people)
@@pebo8306 I did assume you were making a joke, That being said, there have been myriad uses of less-lethal crowd control devices used in the recent turmoil in the US in the past few months. Just because the incident in Floyd was an example of excessive lethal force doesn't mean that US police don't use less-lethal weapons. I'm sure many recent protesters can vouch for that. In fact there have been complaints recently over the police using less-lethal devices excessively against non-violent protesters.
Again! Very interesting. You can see the same effect if you put a suppressor on a rifle. I thought it would have a larger effect. Thanks for testing and sharing
Yes, my enemies also shit theit pants, when i screw on the suppressor. Yokes aside, i thought the same thing. With sup. my point of impact changes about 7cm vertically at 100m.
Nice video. I'm not entirely sur[rised by the results. I used to shoot and compete in rimfire benchrest. We had adjustable muzzle devices, wieghing for 7-15 ounces attached to the muzzles, that we used to adjust barrel harmonics. You were at a big disadvantage if you did not use them. Great shooting for the old rifle, always enjoy your videos.
Don’t forget due to the fire rate at the time the bayonet is still important for the individual soldier if they are in the process of reloading, their bayonet could still defend them from close quarters melee
First of all, very good video, keep it up! It is not exactly to be compared with a muzzle loader from times of civil war, but for a Russian Mosin Nagant, for example, the bayonet extremely decides the point of the hit! My 91/30 shoots with the bayonet 25cm to the left and 5 cm high at 100m, the group size remains about the same! greetings
As to the differences you sight, I would submit the following if you please; First: In Europe you are correct that very few if any conscripted soldiers had ever held, if even seen a firearm. Were as in the America's the firearm was an ingrained part of life for most as it still is today. And even those living in large metropolitan cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston were still at least familiar with them. Second: It is true that in America as in Europe up through the mid 19th century, Napoleonic battlefield tactics were taught and employed to include fixing bayonets for the charge were the norm. The difference being that most battlefield commanders after 1862 in the American Civil-War almost wholly abandoned the concept of standing in the open and letting your unit be cut to piece by highly accurate rifle volley fire. Were as in Europe, they would continue to us Napoleonic tactics up to the beginning of the 20th century. And in some instances these outdated tactics held through WWI with the suicidal "Over-the-Top" bayonet charges.
Yeah pretty much after the battle of Antietam The Union and confeds started To space out their lines a lot more Now if I recall correctly the Confeds started actually splitting their troops Lines before the Union and that was one reason in some battles that the Confederates Won Where the Union didn’t Like in glory at the beginning They stay in formation vs an entire defensive line during a charge Both things they did were stupid And I wish generals would of done better
By 1860 ownership of firearms was not that common in the US. It had been back in colonial times, where it was legally required. And wars with both Indians and other colonial powers was a real issue. But the need was no longer there for most of the country. And even if it where, using a small bore hunting rifle to hunt rabbits or a shotgun for birds do not in anyway teach you to use a military rifle musket at 200+ yards. Highly accurate rifle volley fire was extremely rare. The civil war was fought by citizen armies that had no marksmanship training and didn't do any sort of shooting out side of combat. For a lot of soldiers they had a hard time even loading their guns and taking care of them. In spring of 1864 Meade issued 10 rounds to all men in his army. Why? because as he complain in the order, many soldiers have been in combat multiply times without ever managing to fire their gun. After 3 years of war, the are still having issues doing something as basic as loading their guns. And during the Gettysburg Campaign Lee had to issue a order to his entire army, that company officers is required to make sure that the men actual clean their guns after use. They had complaints about "oversized" bullets. Their ordnance department looked into it and found the issue was not the bullets... but that most guns in the regiments they inspected had guns with heavy fouling... this is after 2 years of war... and Lee's men don't know to clean their guns... And both is the result of the none existent marksman ship training. Going true the motions of loading was done daily. But actually taking a cartridge, opening it, using it was often only done in combat. This result in men trained well... in the wrong movements. This resulted in firefights at about 100yards. The whole reason the NRA was created was because of the abysmal marksmanship of soldiers on both sides. And tactically you are also believing in myths. The civil war was fought in close ordered lines. Only by 1864 did some units start to open up the formations. In comparison most European armies used 25-% of its infantry as skirmishers, and for some like the brits, prussians and danes fighting in extended order was the norm.
Napoleonic tactics were quite valid for the time period, until more rapid-fire weapons were invented, and even then, in some cases they'd work. During later battles of the US civil war, especially when assaulting defences, it was better to charge in with bayonet, instead of standing in the open and being shot to pieces without doing anything significant. US and CS armies of time period weren't even close in proficiency to their European counterparts, and I'd guess that in a similar scenario, French or Russian armies indeed instead of waiting to get shot, would've prefered to use the 'suicidal' bayonet charges to minimise potential losses and count on enemy not having the stomach to receive a charge and fight in melee. For example, using the battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Federal forces rightly so realised that forming up a column on a short front and trying to get in close and personal to a entrenched enemy to overwhelm him numerically, is the better alternative rather than hoping to achieve something with gunfire... But then US forces lost all cohesion, and couldn't exploit having a total numerical superiority, getting bogged down due to poor command and lack of support.
One LAST thing. Not having visited for a while, I can say your English is much improved. On the chance that you or some others may take that comment as an affront, let me say that I mean that purely as a compliment and never at anytime imply or implied, ANY criticism. Actually, I am well aware that as an American I can only barely speak English at best and I certainly cannot speak 2 languages (allowing that you may well manage more than that.) So I am not holding myself above anybody's speaking.
That was the story of Gettysburg...the Union Soldier had 1500 yards of open field to fire on the Confederates. Only 10% of the Confed. soldiers arrived at the Union line with a bayonet charge and were easily repulsed. The Union Soldier knew how to fire their rifle for effect and the Confed. soldiers were decimated as they marched forward in a line. Previously the smoothbore musket would not have been effective until the last few hundred yards and 50% or more of the soldiers arrived with bayonet to break through...and often did. Many other battles in the woods in the Mississippi campaign were fought as skirmishes and resemble modern tactics of movement and cover fire. The surprise is that WW1 still relied on the bayonet charge to defeat the enemy in the face of machine guns! They were still applying Napoleonic tactics against machine guns and millions of young men died.
American mythmaking. If you followed this channel you should know that taking advantage of a rifle musket require extensive training. He even make this clear early in the video. This was (almost) never done during the civil war. It was common for a soldier (on both sides) to go into combat without ever having fired his gun in training. And there was no systematic training put into place. Only a few of the sharpshooter units was allowed a bit of live firing for training. But it was limited. The result is that most combat took place at about 100 yards. A range where a smoothbore with buckshoots would have been the same or better for 90+% of the troops. And at Gettysburg a number of union units at the receiving end of "pickets charge" did in fact have smoothbores issued, that they had loaded with buckshoots. And they had also picked up rifle muskets the day before on the battlefield. So each man had 2-3 guns ready. This gave them a massive improvement in firepower.
@@meisterproper8304 "Battle tactics of the civil war" by Paddy Griffith started the needed dismissal of myths of firefights at 300+ yards. Earl Hess, Marks Grimsley or Brent Nosworthy are also options. All of them have done serious study at the topic of combat range during the civil war. And they give numbers for the average range when the firing was started. They don't come to the same number, but Hess give a short 95 yards and Griffith a long 140 yards. (Note its when firing started, not when the attacker stopped and fired back and we get the long firefight) Brett gibbons is also an option with his "the Destroying Angle" It mostly look at the british use of the enfield and only cover the civil war in a short chapter... where he agree that the typical soldier did not in any way have the skills needed to take advantage of his rifled weapon. The basic fact is that to hit with a rifle musket at more than maybe 120 yards you need training in marksmanship and especially range estimation. (because the bullet fly a lot slower than bullets from modern firearms) And it require plenty of live firing on a range where you are told if you hit and get systematic feedback from qualified instructors. This was almost never done during the civil war. Most soldiers never fired their guns out side of combat. And a lot had plenty of issue even loading and cleaning their guns... (You likely read about the number of guns found after Gettysburg with more than one bullet loaded) And the fact that the drill used to not include any time or action dealing with setting the sights do not help at all. And that is on both sides.
Hm interesting. I read in a book, that quoted Austrian /Austro Hungarian army comission conclusions a few things that claimed it otherwise it seems. They at some point changed the position of the bayonet from sideways to under the barrel as this (occording to their testing) only effected the poi vertically while the sideways position was said to effect the poi horizontally, what they judged less easy to cope with for a soldier. And with the M95 they even had bayonets where they chose to have the sharpened edge of the knife bayonet facing upwards (towards the barrel or path of the bullet so to say) as this (according to them) had the least effect on the poi.
I think the best argument for shooting with affixed bayonets is threefold. You're going to want to stand them up so they'll help with stacking. There's no apparent downside to shooting with them attached. If you find yourself in that situation where you would find that jabby bit handy, you'll really wish you just left it there when you picked your rifle up out of the stack this morning. When you're dealing with single shot rifles, it would make for a good security blanket too as you focus so hard on reloading and those guys marching up seem to get so much closer every time you look up after loading.
When you look at that painfully slow fire rate no wonder why precussion breech loaders were so revolutionary.That ram rod is just killing it ,every time you have to pull it out ram the ball pull it out and put it in position. I heard that sometimes in a battle people would forgot to take it out and left it in a barrel.So not only it was for ramming but it was also used as a extra projectile :) I would love to see that in a slow motion :)
The British army were always keen on bayonets, to an extent they still are. It's a weapon of intent, fixing bayonets tells the enemy how far you are willing to take the fight. From memory the last time a unit of the British army carried out a bayonet charge was the battle of Goose Green, during the Falklands War.
Fun Fact; American Civil War cartridge boxes had tin liners. In combination with the tin liners the cartridge boxes were designed in such a way that if they explored they would blow out and away from the shooter to lessen the injury to the person.
@@thomasbaagaard Yes, in addition to protecting the soldier from accidental explosion....at least according to Frederick Todd in his book "American Military Equipage, 1852 - 1872".
@@Mike-im5bo I read a lot of period military litterateur. drill books, regulations, ordnance department manuals. And I never seen that claim anywhere. (and I dont see how it should do so physically) What is his source? Because I would love to read it.
@@thomasbaagaard I got this information from Frederick Todd's "American Military Equipage, 1858-1872". Sorry that I do not remember the page number. I am reciting this "fact" from memory. If I am wrong I am more than willing to retract my statement.
@@Mike-im5bo It is not possible to prove a negative ;-) So I can't really prove you wrong. I heared this "fact" a few times before from reenactors but as mentioned I never seen any evidence of it in any period american or danish military litterateur. I obviously have not read everything... but I have read a good deal. So that is why I called it a myth. What I don't understand is how the powder is expected to blow up in the first place? Anyway, it looks like an interesting book, I will keep an eye on it as see if I can get hold of it.
I think it depends on the individual rifle. Harmonics may be made better, no change, or made worse. As always, great informative videos. I saved you as a favorite seller on eBay. Before this video, I did not know it was there.
Great video. (Even with practice for the last few years, I come nowhere near as accurate as that!) One other consideration, as those were still slow firing, the bayonet was still the best last defense for any cavalry charge! By the end of the American Civil War, rifle range and speed had improved to the point where most horses were only used for transport or messenger service! Especially as the Gatling Guns were just starting to be introduced, not to mention even more dangerous weapons like Maxim guns.
Lets assume your holding your breath as the shot fires, then the vertical string of shots is a result of your heart beat upon your group. You were impressing, I hope I can shoot as well.
I imagine one of the reasons why the bayonet was kept must also have been because it's a decent crowd control weapon, same reason why modern royal guards still use them. Pointing a bayonet in someone's general direction both sends a clear message and instinctively will make people move away since it's a pointy object and it also means that you haven't escalated to pointing a gun at them. It's something you can do to make someone move away who is not obviously breaking the law or whatever but who is getting a bit too close. And obviously with muskets this makes even more sense since you really didn't walk around with them loaded so if you weren't actively fighting right now the bayonet was really your only weapon, this probably meant that the bayonet was one of the best ways to handle prisoners. So even though it wasn't useful in battle it was still useful to have an army with them since the army obviously had to do a lot more than just fight in battles. Later on with the introduction of bolt actions, magazines and safeties this became obsolete since you could now walk around ready to fire and you had more than one shot so say unarmed prisoners couldn't just easily overrun you.
And you forgot to take cavalry into account. It was still a very important "engine" of war, and a long pointy stick remains an effective tool to keep a horse and its sabre-wielding rider at bay.
I thought of you yesterday, I was at a local gun shop and there was a 1851 Navy 36cal an original they were asking $1700 if is a good looking one. I didn’t question the price it looked that good.
capandball I didn’t check it out ask to see it the old saying don’t touch what you cannot buy or afford but it looked good you take care till the next video .
One thing I find somewhat interesting is that the engagement ranges didn't really change between the days of the smoothbore and the days of the rifle if I recall right. Most engagements of the US Civil War were at much less than 100 yards (Often with fire being exchanged at less than 50).
poorly trained soldiers who never received any real education in marksmanship, never learned to use the sights or learned the critical skill of range estimation. And they never did any live firing outside of combat. And without all this, you never learn to shot at more than point blank range. The result is that they did not in any way have the skills needed for long range firing. some officers realized this and simply held fire so the officers held fire until close range. Others learned it by experience when they did allow firing and long range and it was simply a wast of cartridges. The British where extremely well trained in marksmanship and shot a lot of rounds each year. And in the Crimea there are examples of effective firing at 6-800 yards. I can recommend the youtube channel ua-cam.com/users/britishmuzzleloaders and the book "the destroying Angel" by Brett Gibbons its about the rifle musket and its use outside of the civil war.
It would be interesting to compare reload times with and without, and maybe ease of holding it at aim with and without for a long time before it starts to wobble.
It makes no difference on loadtime... if you know you drill. I actually tested this back in april, when we where under lockdown. ua-cam.com/video/iZsfi9BeWZc/v-deo.html Note Iam just doing true the motions with no actually bullet or powder. But as can be seen the bayonet is no issue at all. But the extra weight do making holding the gun in "aim" more stressfull.
@@thomasbaagaard until you slice your hand open. scholagladiatoria just put out a video a week ago about the yataghan bayonets that where supposed mitigate this problem
Thank you for the video. I did in 1972 bayonet training with 7.62 FN as a conscript. I shoot .22RF benchrest(see wrabf.com ) and I have a barrel tuner on my Anschutz Match 54 and I suspected out that you will shoot better groups with the fixed bayonet because of the extra weight in front of the rifle barrel
Another thing I am wondering, does loading in “haste” on the battlefield reduce the average accuracy of the shot compared to giving yourself all the time in the world to reload?
@@denisdegamon8224 that's a bunch of crap, a badly deformed bullet nose absolutely impacts accuracy. Hence why you use special loading jags for loading modern conical bullets or sabots, especially the ballistic tip ones or some of the other more pointed designs
@@jordanhicks5131 What the hell do I know.....I have been a shooting competitor for decades and a blavn powder shooter and reloader for 45 years, you pompous jackwagon.
@@denisdegamon8224 what the hell do I know I have the same credentials bud. Loading a sprue off center will give you a flier, so will mashing the bullet tip on a conical or beating the bejesus out of a ball pretending you are the village blacksmith while loading.
It would make s difference if it were a rifled gun with a modern cartridge due to better gas seal of the bullet in the barrel where barrel harmonics are much more important.
2:30 This is a question I have asked myself. In fact I've noticed that the casualty rates remain fairly static at about 10%-20% even up to the very end of the 19th century, despite the inventions of breech loading rifles, smokeless powder rifles, and magazine rifles. I didn't look beyond the end of the 19th century because as you get into the 20'th century it becomes much harder to define the boundaries of a battle and therefore which casualties should be counted, for which units, over which period of time. But within the 19th century casualty rates seemed to be pretty static regardless of technology. That is provided that both sides have equal technology. Casualty rates did differ if one side had a significant technological advantage over the other side in that the side with the technological advantage tended to win and suffer fewer casualties than was typical for a winning side. But the side with the technological disadvantage did not see a difference in their casualty rates. They were more likely to lose, but their losses would be very typical of a losing side of any tech level. My hypothesis is that the deadliness of the weapons doesn't change the casualty threshold it takes to convince a soldier or commander to break off an attack or abandon their defenses. It all comes down to imagining yourself in the shoes of a commander or soldier on the field. Perhaps the newer weapons really are deadlier, in that each weapon can inflict more casualties per minute of action than its obsolete predecessor. But the end result of that may only be that you break off your attack earlier. You may have taken casualties more quickly, but the casualty threshold you were willing to tolerate in one action didn't change. That is my hypothesis anyway, the core flaw of which is that it is based largely on speculation. But whatever the reason, the result seems to be clear. And that is that more advanced weapons apparently do not make battles deadlier (it may not be valid to extrapolate that into the 21st or even 20th century since, again, it is harder to define the boundaries of a modern battle, so it's hard to do a one to one comparison with pre-20th century battles).
It is because the rifle muskets actually didn't effect the casualties at all. The rifled muskets extra advantage in accuracy was not improved due to the untrained soldiers of the Civil war and the enemy target being a line (which a slight spread wouldn't be very different). The smoothbore musket had a flatter trajectory therefore is more likely to cause more casualties in closer ranges. However, there are instances where rifled muskets fired in long ranges which a smoothbore can never achieve (but these were very rare). So rather than the bayonet casualties changes (it already accounted only 2% of the total wounds in the Napoleonic Wars), it is the fact that the firearm casualties never changed.
@@presidentlouis-napoleonbon8889 That might account for it if I had only noticed this pattern in conflicts featuring predominantly smoothbore muskets, and conflicts featuring predominantly rifled muskets. But the pattern holds even when single shot breech loading rifles enter the scene, and continues right through the era of smokeless powder magazine rifles. It seems that weapons do not effect casualty rates at all, no matter what weapons you have (provided that both sides have the same weapons, weapons technology will effect casualty rates only if one side has more advanced weapons than the other). Now I have also written a whole series of arguments (mostly as part of a 3 page research paper I did for my English 100 class) on why I think rifled muskets didn't make anywhere near as significant a difference as everyone believes. But casualty rates never entered into those arguments for the reasons mentioned above. I am actually trying to track down a lead on what precisely the difference might have been by taking a closer look at the Crimean War. The Crimean War is the perfect conflict for those interested in the difference in effectiveness between rifled and smoothbore muskets as both sides were equipped with significant numbers of both rifled and smoothbore muskets (although the French and British generally had a substantially higher proportion of rifles than did the Russians). In order to even out differences in training or leadership I want to compare the performance of a number of individual regiments in just one army (that way they should all have the same training, and probably similar leadership), with some of those being regiments equipped with rifles, and some being regiments equipped with smoothbores. I am hoping that if rifles really do have a genuine battlefield advantage over smoothbores that should show up as the rifle equipped regiments performing better than the smoothbore equipped regiments. The only thing I am lacking at the moment is access to the combat records of individual regiments in the Crimean war.
As long as it is possible to run away, casualties rates is not effected by the arms, but entirely depended on the moral and discipline of the men... and tactics.. And across the musket period we see armies being able to take some 20-30 % casualties before loosing. Only with machine guns and magazine fed rifles do we see units being wiped out because they in a way short time take massive looses and is not able to simply ruin away without getting shot in the back. Even during the Napoleonic wars close combat was rare in the open field. (but common in towns and other defenses) When a attack was made it was either stopped by firepower or the defender retreated before actual hand to hand combat. So if both sides decide to stand and fire at 100yards, then casualties slowly go up over time for both sides often ending in both sides loosing 20%+ of their men in the involved units. With no clear result. other than a lot of dead men. If one side have the superiority in numbers/moral/discipline to drive in a attack, then there is a quick result. Often with fewer casualties in total.
You should leave the spent cap on the Nipple while loading the next round. This will prevent oxygen from getting into the bore while loading the powder and ball. This is mentioned in the Light Infantry Tatics of 1860 in the U.S. Less chance of accidental discharge on a hot barrel firing 3 shots a minute.
I'm not reading through all 241 comments to see what's already been said so if I just duplicate another's comment, my apologies. This will be long and for that I also apologize. I have enjoyed your posts for some time now but, I haven't visited very recently. I want to address a couple things in relation to this topic. First and foremost, you are making a potentially dangerous error in your reloading that could very well lead to an accidental discharge while ramming the bullet home. That being, the removal of the spent cap BEFORE recharge the load. Upon firing, leave the hammer and cap as they are dropping the butt preparatory to reloading. The reason being that the spent cap makes for a better air seal than the hammer alone which very well, even likely will not, be parallel with the cone's (nipple) rim. The danger is that following the powder charge, when ramming the bullet a column of air is forced down the barrel. If a significant amount of this air should blow up through the cone, it could fan any sparks left into life igniting the powder charge. Once powder and ball are rammed and the rammer returned to it's slot, (or just jabbed into the ground as many soldiers often did in a fire fight) it is a simple matter to bring up the rifle, half cock the hammer, and install a new cap at this time or right before firing. Now, where do I get off telling you (and any readers) about this? I am 65 years old. I was very interested in guns and the Civil War ever since I was in grade school and read everything I could get my hands on the subject. In 1972, I bought my first gun (though I already had some in my gun cabinet via my Dad). It was one of Val Forgett's reproduction "Remington Zouave" rifles, a Civil War era muzzle loader though there were relatively few originals made and they saw but little use. I used that and other muzzleloaders for hunting. Then I was a Civil War reneactor for about 5 years culminating in the 1980s 125th anniversary reenactments including 1988's Gettysburg, allegedly the biggest reenactment ever. I was "killed" there and thereby hangs a tale. Ask me if you're interested, else-wise I'll spare you. Finally, I am still shooting muzzle loaders today using as correct Civil War cartridges I make myself, both U.S. types for Springfields and P1853 (Enfields) rifle muskets with Minie' balls and both British and Confederate versions of British cartridges using "Pritchett balls." So you see, I have extensive experience with muzzleloading rifles and techniques along with Civil War manuals on the subject. I'll take a break and dump this on y'all then bring my comment on shooting with and w/out the bayonet, something I have done frequently, both ways.
Question: during battles involving the flintlock rifles/muskets, if the soldier's shot misfired (i.e. no spark, etc.) when given the order to fire, would the soldier immediately re-cock and try firing again? Or would they wait until the next order to fire to keep in line with the rest of the line?
I have to disagree with the importance of cavalry. In particular, the ability to mount a hot pursuit was essential to turn a battlefield success into a rout that crushed enemy cohesion, morale, and the ability to reform his troops.
I am a simple man. I see capandball upload, I click.
:)
Even with a fairly modern rifle and cartridge, the bayonet affects harmonics, and thus accuracy. The Soviet Union sighted their Mosin Nagant 91/30 rifles with the bayonet on. Many of these rifles were available on the surplus market, and I have three. With the bayonet off, the rifle hits about 2 inches high at 100 yards. With the bayonet attached, it is spot on.
01:21
"Come here fool, you are unworthy of my bayonet"
Always a good day when cap and ball uploads a video
When I was going through Ft. Benning Infantry Basic Training and Infantry School in 1986 I did bayonet training. It was only emphasized during Infantry School for a week about 4 days along with other subjects. In the morning for introduction we did rifle PT. The next few days was rifle PT again with bayonets and basic maneuvers. The fun part was more bayonet drills and the "Pugil Sticks". This is where we can beat the shit out of each other. The last day was the Bayonet Assault Course. It was a 1/4 mile long course in we ran in 10 lanes and engaged and stabbed rubber tires and sand bags. I had fun with it that I came in first. Then my Drill Sergeants made me do it again with the rest of my platoon followed me and watched as I ran and dodged obstacles and do a good execution of stabs, parry, butt strokes, smash. At the end I got a round of applause from my guys from pouring sweat. My Drill Sergeants gave me a Snickers Bar for my reward. That was my memory from 34 years ago. My first combat in Panama 1989-90 I was issued a bayonet even though I was a machinegunner. Hey they issued it to anyone who wanted one. In Iraq I brought my own M-7 Bayonet which I got from the Army when it was replaced by the M-9. Good to have a knife bayonet for general purpose.
Thank you for your service.
Thanks for sharing man that was a good read
John Dilday Same here. Thank you fellas
thank you for sharing!
Always heard that the M7 was better than the M9, and now I have a first hand account
Capandball is among a small group of amateur historians who provide us with an accurate analysis of past events. I like the practical aspect of the work being done. No Fake News here! Cheers!
He is not an amateur though. He literally teachis this at university.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Lol I was about to say its faulty at best and insulting at worst to label him an amateur. He is literally a college professor of history! How much more credentials do you need before you can shake the amateur label idk?
Last sentence by far the best "and of course, the enemy will shit his pants"
That's why the uniform pants are always brown and the shirts are always red
You are a seriously good shot, doing all the motions of reloading, aiming only for a second, and still getting groups like that. You really do the men of history justice.
I read several years ago a batch of Letters from the Crimean War, that a friend of mine found in a secret compartment of a old Desk, that he was restoring for a Client of his.
In one of the letters to his father he described the "devastating" power of the Minie.
According to this letter, not only the first Russian Soldier in the Column was killed or maimed, also the one behind and sometimes even a third was killed or wounded.
Unfortunately we didn't think to make copies of those letters, but they made that Desk so much more Valuable at the Auction in Cape Town.
The main reason for the similarity in causalities from say the European War of 1812 and the US Civil War was more because Disease was the biggest killer in both. In terms of battlefield casualties there are a few things to consider, though the casualties were similar overall, I don't think they could be counted the same.
1. As you mentioned, Less people were shot in earlier wars with the flintlock smoothbores, but alot more bayonet casualties. Wheras in the Civil War, hardly anyone received bayonet wounds. Most were shot.
2.Every casualty in the US Civil War was an American, technically at least.
3. In older wars, Soldiers tended to be well trained for many months or even years in very strict drill. Which helped componsate for the problems with the weapons. Wheras in the US Civil War, the weapons improved but training was lacking, as many troops had to be quickly recruited and sent into battle, leaving little time for training. There are many accounts, especially as the war progresses, that a regiment did not fire their muskets at all until the battle.
4. Adding to the previous point, the lesser trained soldiers of the Civil War also tended to be young boys, 17 to 25 roughly, Knowing they're shooting their own people, Many were too frightened, or reluctant to shoot what they considered their peers. Many would shoot over their heads. Or become so frightened that they would often not load properly, forgetting the percussion cap, or forgetting to return the ramrod, so they couldn't load more shots. In Gettysburg alone, 10 000+ rifles were found with more than one load in them. So while the weapons were better, the poor trained soldier limited the advantage.
5. Regiment sizes were smaller especially as the war progressed as both sides simply didn't have the men needed to replace losses in the ranks. Usually a Civil War era wound was more likely to leave you maimed and thus unfit to fight anymore. Smoothbore wounds tended to be less devestating, more soldiers could be successfully treated to fight again. Also not suffering as much from manpower shortages. If Regiment sizes during the Civil War remained at high levels like 1000 to 700 men rather than the 300 to 500 Men which was the typical regimental strength, Casualities would have been significantly higher. the fact that smaller regimental sizes were still able to match casualities from previous wars is frankly... tragic.
Basically 1812 had more men, professionally trained and diciplined, wheras the US Civil War, you had men who were poorly but quickly trained with smaller regiment strengths. Casualty rates in Civil War era battles were higher than 20%, more like 30 to 60 percent, they would be considered bloodbaths today. I hope this offers some insight.
4. exactly.
99% of the soldiers where untrained in marksmanship and was not trained correctly in actually loading their guns. That is why so many could not manage to load their guns and hit a target. They had not learned to use their sights. Or to judge the range. or to correctly load their guns.
When going into combat you fall back in you training. And what they trained each and every day was a set of motions that do not result in a loaded gun.
Just going true the motions of "load in nine times" do not include the Taking the bullet out of the paper and inserting it. And it don't really include. taking a percussion cap and placing it on the nipple.
The experienced soldiers back then where very well drilled... at drill.. But not at actually loading and using their guns.
Love the incredible insight you share!
Thanks for a great exploration of the topic. As a US Marine during the early Vietnam period I trained as a riflemen with both the M-1 and M-14 from Springfield and with the bayonet, and had ancestors who fought in the Civil War. Wonderful job.
A subsciber for some years, I do not shoot, but find your knowledge and presentation addictive you deserve more subscribers, thanks.
Still think you are the best source for cap and ball weapons information on UA-cam and thanks for letting us watch it
Thanks!
Interesting video!!
Other uses include using the bayonet as a cooking implement for toasting bread or cooking meat. Great and informative video.
Seems like the bayonet improved your barrel harmonics.
Outstanding shooting, sir. Those old rifles have crude sights, and to be able to shoot that well is a testament to your great skill. Thanks for sharing.
I enjoy looking around the edges of the frame at the range and listening to the background sounds to get as much as possible from the vedio as posible.
Amerifat reporting in. Last year after watching some of your videos I decided to invest in a Pietta model 1858 Sheriff revolver and it is now one of my favorite range-toys; people always approach me at the range to ask about what kind of firearm I'm shooting, and a decent conversation typically ensues. Heck, I love cap and ball shooting so much now that I have learned how to make and granularize my own black powder, lead round balls, and flash-paper! Thanks for the inspiration, sir. Please keep it up!
CapandBall makes the most useful and researched 19th century arm videos on UA-cam. He is literally my favourite youtuber, but I hope you upload MORE videos :)
I really like capand ball... but Britsish muzzleloaders is better, since he actually wear the correct uniforms and gear and use the correct drill.
(unlike on this channel, where the drill got very little to do with the historical one)
ua-cam.com/users/britishmuzzleloaders
In terms of entertainment, I choose capandball. Britishmuzzleloaders is great. But capandball tend to get his hands on more diverse firearms which is very unheard of compared to the more mainstream British service rifles of Rob. Of course, the information he would receive is far less than a British service rifle manual.
@@presidentlouis-napoleonbon8889 You could say cap and ball is a better channel for firearms. Rob is better for putting the firearm in its propper context.
Personally, if I want to know about firearms, I go for forgottenweapons...
That said, I have followed cap and ball for years. And his focus on East eruopean history is a nice change from the US/british one that is more common.
Nice! I'm going to have to find a bayonet for my 1870 Trapdoor Springfield 50-70!
This is a fascinating vid, covering something I always wondered about.
Sir, thank you for your marvelous experiential archeology in this video as I learned more from you and your methods. Also, I appreciate your products. I love my bayonet as a bacon scuer at the campfire and as a candle holder for nighttime reading. Much obliged!
Not what I would have expected. Interesting results.
How interesting it is to see how it really was. Thank you for the video.
Great video, lovin the humble promoting. This chanel is my favourite, almost noone does black powder videos like this gentleman.
Great shooting. I didn't expect those results.
The psycological effect should not be underestimated. If you look at the casualty rates, cold steel was not an important inflictor of wounds...yet commanders like Napoleon and Jackson regarded the bayonet highly. Mostly because it drove the enemy back. Bullets attack the body, cold steel attacks the spirit.
Excellent content as always. I get anxious watching you load and shoot and am transported back to the Civil War days imagining the enemy advancing.
I shouted in my head “faster, faster!” “Here they come!”
Every time a new cap and ball video comes out, I shout and smash the video with my mouse and punch the like button.
Bayonets main useage during 18th century wars-as a cooking spit. And pot hanger.
My Mosin Nagant M91/30 will shoot dead on to point of aim at 100 yards with a similar bayonet. 8-10 inches high right without it.
Another great Vid. You are some fast loader, some NSSA team could sure use you.
I would love to get a brass ramrod like yours!
Thanks for exploring this concept! It may be that the weight of the bayonet makes the barrel more rigid by pushing it against the bands & breech more.
Bayonets were not just used to charge at the enemy. They were also used for defense against cavalry instead of pikes. A musket with a bayonet attached, had enough reach to dismount a horseman.
I consider your accuracy and reloading speed to be pretty impressive. I believe the barrel bands on that rifle dampen the barrel harmonics significantly, just like full length bedding a modern rifle. For a demonstration, take a standard tuning fork and strike it against a surface holding it properly, then put your hand around the base of the forks and strike it again.
this is the comment I was looking for. Yes, a tuning fork is an accurate representation of barrel harmonics. every shot fired is equivalent to striking a tuning fork.
some of the best content on youtube
Really good points of views. Fact versus fiction. Facts, and educated well built guesses, wins every time. Material for pondering.
Great work, very interesting questions and experiment
Another great video, not that you ever disappoint.
Awesome video and excellent wardrobe!
Another big advantage, especially with single shot weapons, is prisoner control. Using a bayonet to coerce prisoner movement means you are ready to respond regardless of the state of the weapon being loaded or not. Plus the consequence of being poked with the bayonet acts as a "less lethal" coercion technique where discharging the weapon is unnecessary or inappropriate.
They should reintroduce bayonets to American police,if your theory is valid!LOL All the looters would be really impressed!
@@pebo8306 Because police, especially in modern times have access to more specialized less-lethal options, I doubt cold steel would ever be considered. A bayonet may be less lethal than a rifle round, but it is also considerably more lethal than pepper spray, tear gas, tasers, etc.. Keep in mind that in the past, "public disorder" events in US history, soldiers armed with mounted bayonets was not uncommon in controlling a crowd. There are photos taken during the Civil Rights Era of US troops brandishing bayonet-mounted M1 Garand rifles to discourage segregationist rioters in Little Rock AR.
@@colbunkmust Yes,they have access to "less lethal options"but the will to use them seems limited.Or how do explain the firing of 7 bullets in a man's back like in the Floyd case recently? But yes,I admit a litlle irony was involved from my side! (Although poking all that BLM seems very tempting to many people)
@@pebo8306 I did assume you were making a joke, That being said, there have been myriad uses of less-lethal crowd control devices used in the recent turmoil in the US in the past few months. Just because the incident in Floyd was an example of excessive lethal force doesn't mean that US police don't use less-lethal weapons. I'm sure many recent protesters can vouch for that. In fact there have been complaints recently over the police using less-lethal devices excessively against non-violent protesters.
Again! Very interesting.
You can see the same effect if you put a suppressor on a rifle.
I thought it would have a larger effect.
Thanks for testing and sharing
what if we put a bayonet on a suppressed rifle?
Yes, my enemies also shit theit pants, when i screw on the suppressor.
Yokes aside, i thought the same thing. With sup. my point of impact changes about 7cm vertically at 100m.
Nice video. I'm not entirely sur[rised by the results. I used to shoot and compete in rimfire benchrest. We had adjustable muzzle devices, wieghing for 7-15 ounces attached to the muzzles, that we used to adjust barrel harmonics. You were at a big disadvantage if you did not use them. Great shooting for the old rifle, always enjoy your videos.
Don’t forget due to the fire rate at the time the bayonet is still important for the individual soldier if they are in the process of reloading, their bayonet could still defend them from close quarters melee
First of all, very good video, keep it up!
It is not exactly to be compared with a muzzle loader from times of civil war, but for a Russian Mosin Nagant, for example, the bayonet extremely decides the point of the hit! My 91/30 shoots with the bayonet 25cm to the left and 5 cm high at 100m, the group size remains about the same!
greetings
As to the differences you sight, I would submit the following if you please;
First: In Europe you are correct that very few if any conscripted soldiers had ever held, if even seen a firearm. Were as in the America's the firearm was an ingrained part of life for most as it still is today. And even those living in large metropolitan cities such as New York, Philadelphia and Boston were still at least familiar with them.
Second: It is true that in America as in Europe up through the mid 19th century, Napoleonic battlefield tactics were taught and employed to include fixing bayonets for the charge were the norm. The difference being that most battlefield commanders after 1862 in the American Civil-War almost wholly abandoned the concept of standing in the open and letting your unit be cut to piece by highly accurate rifle volley fire. Were as in Europe, they would continue to us Napoleonic tactics up to the beginning of the 20th century. And in some instances these outdated tactics held through WWI with the suicidal "Over-the-Top" bayonet charges.
Yeah pretty much after the battle of Antietam
The Union and confeds started To space out their lines a lot more
Now if I recall correctly the Confeds started actually splitting their troops Lines before the Union and that was one reason in some battles that the Confederates Won
Where the Union didn’t
Like in glory at the beginning
They stay in formation vs an entire defensive line during a charge
Both things they did were stupid
And I wish generals would of done better
By 1860 ownership of firearms was not that common in the US.
It had been back in colonial times, where it was legally required. And wars with both Indians and other colonial powers was a real issue. But the need was no longer there for most of the country.
And even if it where, using a small bore hunting rifle to hunt rabbits or a shotgun for birds do not in anyway teach you to use a military rifle musket at 200+ yards.
Highly accurate rifle volley fire was extremely rare.
The civil war was fought by citizen armies that had no marksmanship training and didn't do any sort of shooting out side of combat.
For a lot of soldiers they had a hard time even loading their guns and taking care of them.
In spring of 1864 Meade issued 10 rounds to all men in his army. Why? because as he complain in the order, many soldiers have been in combat multiply times without ever managing to fire their gun. After 3 years of war, the are still having issues doing something as basic as loading their guns.
And during the Gettysburg Campaign Lee had to issue a order to his entire army, that company officers is required to make sure that the men actual clean their guns after use.
They had complaints about "oversized" bullets. Their ordnance department looked into it and found the issue was not the bullets... but that most guns in the regiments they inspected had guns with heavy fouling... this is after 2 years of war... and Lee's men don't know to clean their guns...
And both is the result of the none existent marksman ship training.
Going true the motions of loading was done daily. But actually taking a cartridge, opening it, using it was often only done in combat. This result in men trained well... in the wrong movements.
This resulted in firefights at about 100yards.
The whole reason the NRA was created was because of the abysmal marksmanship of soldiers on both sides.
And tactically you are also believing in myths.
The civil war was fought in close ordered lines. Only by 1864 did some units start to open up the formations.
In comparison most European armies used 25-% of its infantry as skirmishers, and for some like the brits, prussians and danes fighting in extended order was the norm.
Napoleonic tactics were quite valid for the time period, until more rapid-fire weapons were invented, and even then, in some cases they'd work. During later battles of the US civil war, especially when assaulting defences, it was better to charge in with bayonet, instead of standing in the open and being shot to pieces without doing anything significant. US and CS armies of time period weren't even close in proficiency to their European counterparts, and I'd guess that in a similar scenario, French or Russian armies indeed instead of waiting to get shot, would've prefered to use the 'suicidal' bayonet charges to minimise potential losses and count on enemy not having the stomach to receive a charge and fight in melee.
For example, using the battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Federal forces rightly so realised that forming up a column on a short front and trying to get in close and personal to a entrenched enemy to overwhelm him numerically, is the better alternative rather than hoping to achieve something with gunfire... But then US forces lost all cohesion, and couldn't exploit having a total numerical superiority, getting bogged down due to poor command and lack of support.
an excellent presentation, Sir.
You know your shit, khudos! I'm thankful for finding your chanel. Great content.
My new boss at chipotle is from Hungary. He was very informative about the Hungarian revolution.
One LAST thing. Not having visited for a while, I can say your English is much improved. On the chance that you or some others may take that comment as an affront, let me say that I mean that purely as a compliment and never at anytime imply or implied, ANY criticism.
Actually, I am well aware that as an American I can only barely speak English at best and I certainly cannot speak 2 languages (allowing that you may well manage more than that.) So I am not holding myself above anybody's speaking.
Great video as always
Last time I was this early, the British were coming.
We still are, but we don't know where we're going.
We still are coming, in the presence of your mother.
@Ross Cox it's not my fault you survived multiple abortion attempts.
That was the story of Gettysburg...the Union Soldier had 1500 yards of open field to fire on the Confederates. Only 10% of the Confed. soldiers arrived at the Union line with a bayonet charge and were easily repulsed. The Union Soldier knew how to fire their rifle for effect and the Confed. soldiers were decimated as they marched forward in a line. Previously the smoothbore musket would not have been effective until the last few hundred yards and 50% or more of the soldiers arrived with bayonet to break through...and often did.
Many other battles in the woods in the Mississippi campaign were fought as skirmishes and resemble modern tactics of movement and cover fire.
The surprise is that WW1 still relied on the bayonet charge to defeat the enemy in the face of machine guns! They were still applying Napoleonic tactics against machine guns and millions of young men died.
American mythmaking. If you followed this channel you should know that taking advantage of a rifle musket require extensive training. He even make this clear early in the video.
This was (almost) never done during the civil war. It was common for a soldier (on both sides) to go into combat without ever having fired his gun in training. And there was no systematic training put into place.
Only a few of the sharpshooter units was allowed a bit of live firing for training. But it was limited.
The result is that most combat took place at about 100 yards. A range where a smoothbore with buckshoots would have been the same or better for 90+% of the troops.
And at Gettysburg a number of union units at the receiving end of "pickets charge" did in fact have smoothbores issued, that they had loaded with buckshoots. And they had also picked up rifle muskets the day before on the battlefield. So each man had 2-3 guns ready. This gave them a massive improvement in firepower.
@@thomasbaagaard you have a source for that 100yard statement?
@@meisterproper8304 "Battle tactics of the civil war" by Paddy Griffith started the needed dismissal of myths of firefights at 300+ yards.
Earl Hess, Marks Grimsley or Brent Nosworthy are also options.
All of them have done serious study at the topic of combat range during the civil war.
And they give numbers for the average range when the firing was started. They don't come to the same number, but Hess give a short 95 yards and Griffith a long 140 yards.
(Note its when firing started, not when the attacker stopped and fired back and we get the long firefight)
Brett gibbons is also an option with his "the Destroying Angle" It mostly look at the british use of the enfield and only cover the civil war in a short chapter... where he agree that the typical soldier did not in any way have the skills needed to take advantage of his rifled weapon.
The basic fact is that to hit with a rifle musket at more than maybe 120 yards you need training in marksmanship and especially range estimation.
(because the bullet fly a lot slower than bullets from modern firearms)
And it require plenty of live firing on a range where you are told if you hit and get systematic feedback from qualified instructors.
This was almost never done during the civil war. Most soldiers never fired their guns out side of combat. And a lot had plenty of issue even loading and cleaning their guns...
(You likely read about the number of guns found after Gettysburg with more than one bullet loaded)
And the fact that the drill used to not include any time or action dealing with setting the sights do not help at all.
And that is on both sides.
Hm interesting. I read in a book, that quoted Austrian /Austro Hungarian army comission conclusions a few things that claimed it otherwise it seems. They at some point changed the position of the bayonet from sideways to under the barrel as this (occording to their testing) only effected the poi vertically while the sideways position was said to effect the poi horizontally, what they judged less easy to cope with for a soldier. And with the M95 they even had bayonets where they chose to have the sharpened edge of the knife bayonet facing upwards (towards the barrel or path of the bullet so to say) as this (according to them) had the least effect on the poi.
I think the best argument for shooting with affixed bayonets is threefold.
You're going to want to stand them up so they'll help with stacking.
There's no apparent downside to shooting with them attached.
If you find yourself in that situation where you would find that jabby bit handy, you'll really wish you just left it there when you picked your rifle up out of the stack this morning.
When you're dealing with single shot rifles, it would make for a good security blanket too as you focus so hard on reloading and those guys marching up seem to get so much closer every time you look up after loading.
A great video as usual, kudos 🎩
When you look at that painfully slow fire rate no wonder why precussion breech loaders were so revolutionary.That ram rod is just killing it ,every time you have to pull it out ram the ball pull it out and put it in position.
I heard that sometimes in a battle people would forgot to take it out and left it in a barrel.So not only it was for ramming but it was also used as a extra projectile :)
I would love to see that in a slow motion :)
imagine how slow it would be with a wooden ramrod that would break if you used to much pressure.
Love the pictures and illustrations , great shooting !
The British army were always keen on bayonets, to an extent they still are. It's a weapon of intent, fixing bayonets tells the enemy how far you are willing to take the fight. From memory the last time a unit of the British army carried out a bayonet charge was the battle of Goose Green, during the Falklands War.
I heard of one in Afghanistan
@@briarholstein2715 I stand corrected!
great info as all ways thanks C & B
Fun Fact; American Civil War cartridge boxes had tin liners. In combination with the tin liners the cartridge boxes were designed in such a way that if they explored they would blow out and away from the shooter to lessen the injury to the person.
myth.
Tins are there to protect the paper cartridges from damage when being carried in the cartridge box.
@@thomasbaagaard Yes, in addition to protecting the soldier from accidental explosion....at least according to Frederick Todd in his book "American Military Equipage, 1852 - 1872".
@@Mike-im5bo I read a lot of period military litterateur. drill books, regulations, ordnance department manuals.
And I never seen that claim anywhere.
(and I dont see how it should do so physically)
What is his source? Because I would love to read it.
@@thomasbaagaard I got this information from Frederick Todd's "American Military Equipage, 1858-1872". Sorry that I do not remember the page number. I am reciting this "fact" from memory. If I am wrong I am more than willing to retract my statement.
@@Mike-im5bo It is not possible to prove a negative ;-)
So I can't really prove you wrong.
I heared this "fact" a few times before from reenactors but as mentioned I never seen any evidence of it in any period american or danish military litterateur.
I obviously have not read everything... but I have read a good deal. So that is why I called it a myth.
What I don't understand is how the powder is expected to blow up in the first place?
Anyway, it looks like an interesting book, I will keep an eye on it as see if I can get hold of it.
Thanks for answering a question i never thought of
I think it depends on the individual rifle. Harmonics may be made better, no change, or made worse.
As always, great informative videos.
I saved you as a favorite seller on eBay. Before this video, I did not know it was there.
Great video. (Even with practice for the last few years, I come nowhere near as accurate as that!) One other consideration, as those were still slow firing, the bayonet was still the best last defense for any cavalry charge! By the end of the American Civil War, rifle range and speed had improved to the point where most horses were only used for transport or messenger service! Especially as the Gatling Guns were just starting to be introduced, not to mention even more dangerous weapons like Maxim guns.
Well done.
Lets assume your holding your breath as the shot fires, then the vertical string of shots is a result of your heart beat upon your group. You were impressing, I hope I can shoot as well.
Will you have soon a restock of 1777 Charleville musket and dragoon flintlock ? They are all out of stock
I imagine one of the reasons why the bayonet was kept must also have been because it's a decent crowd control weapon, same reason why modern royal guards still use them. Pointing a bayonet in someone's general direction both sends a clear message and instinctively will make people move away since it's a pointy object and it also means that you haven't escalated to pointing a gun at them. It's something you can do to make someone move away who is not obviously breaking the law or whatever but who is getting a bit too close. And obviously with muskets this makes even more sense since you really didn't walk around with them loaded so if you weren't actively fighting right now the bayonet was really your only weapon, this probably meant that the bayonet was one of the best ways to handle prisoners. So even though it wasn't useful in battle it was still useful to have an army with them since the army obviously had to do a lot more than just fight in battles. Later on with the introduction of bolt actions, magazines and safeties this became obsolete since you could now walk around ready to fire and you had more than one shot so say unarmed prisoners couldn't just easily overrun you.
And you forgot to take cavalry into account.
It was still a very important "engine" of war, and a long pointy stick remains an effective tool to keep a horse and its sabre-wielding rider at bay.
When I was re-enacting the CW, we had “guard against Cavalry” drill. Front rank drops to one knee and plants the buttstock into the ground.
I thought of you yesterday, I was at a local gun shop and there was a 1851 Navy 36cal an original they were asking $1700 if is a good looking one. I didn’t question the price it looked that good.
If the barrel is good, that's not a bad price at all!
capandball I didn’t check it out ask to see it the old saying don’t touch what you cannot buy or afford but it looked good you take care till the next video .
Awesome. Love the vids
26:29 i shiated myself
One thing I find somewhat interesting is that the engagement ranges didn't really change between the days of the smoothbore and the days of the rifle if I recall right. Most engagements of the US Civil War were at much less than 100 yards (Often with fire being exchanged at less than 50).
poorly trained soldiers who never received any real education in marksmanship, never learned to use the sights or learned the critical skill of range estimation.
And they never did any live firing outside of combat.
And without all this, you never learn to shot at more than point blank range.
The result is that they did not in any way have the skills needed for long range firing.
some officers realized this and simply held fire so the officers held fire until close range.
Others learned it by experience when they did allow firing and long range and it was simply a wast of cartridges.
The British where extremely well trained in marksmanship and shot a lot of rounds each year. And in the Crimea there are examples of effective firing at 6-800 yards.
I can recommend the youtube channel ua-cam.com/users/britishmuzzleloaders
and the book "the destroying Angel" by Brett Gibbons its about the rifle musket and its use outside of the civil war.
It would be interesting to compare reload times with and without, and maybe ease of holding it at aim with and without for a long time before it starts to wobble.
It makes no difference on loadtime... if you know you drill.
I actually tested this back in april, when we where under lockdown.
ua-cam.com/video/iZsfi9BeWZc/v-deo.html
Note Iam just doing true the motions with no actually bullet or powder. But as can be seen the bayonet is no issue at all.
But the extra weight do making holding the gun in "aim" more stressfull.
@@thomasbaagaard until you slice your hand open. scholagladiatoria just put out a video a week ago about the yataghan bayonets that where supposed mitigate this problem
Really interesting 👍
As usual, perfect job ! 👍
Outstanding
Really nice video! Thank you for your efforts.
By the way I recommend you to check the pronunciation of "Decisive" :)
Thank you for the video. I did in 1972 bayonet training with 7.62 FN as a conscript.
I shoot .22RF benchrest(see wrabf.com ) and I have a barrel tuner on my Anschutz Match 54 and I suspected out that you will shoot better groups with the fixed bayonet because of the extra weight in front of the rifle barrel
You should wear a blue cap to match with the buckle belt.
Another thing I am wondering, does loading in “haste” on the battlefield reduce the average accuracy of the shot compared to giving yourself all the time in the world to reload?
ABSOLUTELY. Deform the bullet tip or mash the ball out of round and your shot will fly wild
@@jordanhicks5131
The bullet nose doesn't steer the bullet. Only the shank or base affects accuracy.
@@denisdegamon8224 that's a bunch of crap, a badly deformed bullet nose absolutely impacts accuracy. Hence why you use special loading jags for loading modern conical bullets or sabots, especially the ballistic tip ones or some of the other more pointed designs
@@jordanhicks5131
What the hell do I know.....I have been a shooting competitor for decades and a blavn powder shooter and reloader for 45 years, you pompous jackwagon.
@@denisdegamon8224 what the hell do I know I have the same credentials bud.
Loading a sprue off center will give you a flier, so will mashing the bullet tip on a conical or beating the bejesus out of a ball pretending you are the village blacksmith while loading.
It would make s difference if it were a rifled gun with a modern cartridge due to better gas seal of the bullet in the barrel where barrel harmonics are much more important.
2:30 This is a question I have asked myself. In fact I've noticed that the casualty rates remain fairly static at about 10%-20% even up to the very end of the 19th century, despite the inventions of breech loading rifles, smokeless powder rifles, and magazine rifles. I didn't look beyond the end of the 19th century because as you get into the 20'th century it becomes much harder to define the boundaries of a battle and therefore which casualties should be counted, for which units, over which period of time.
But within the 19th century casualty rates seemed to be pretty static regardless of technology. That is provided that both sides have equal technology. Casualty rates did differ if one side had a significant technological advantage over the other side in that the side with the technological advantage tended to win and suffer fewer casualties than was typical for a winning side. But the side with the technological disadvantage did not see a difference in their casualty rates. They were more likely to lose, but their losses would be very typical of a losing side of any tech level.
My hypothesis is that the deadliness of the weapons doesn't change the casualty threshold it takes to convince a soldier or commander to break off an attack or abandon their defenses. It all comes down to imagining yourself in the shoes of a commander or soldier on the field. Perhaps the newer weapons really are deadlier, in that each weapon can inflict more casualties per minute of action than its obsolete predecessor. But the end result of that may only be that you break off your attack earlier. You may have taken casualties more quickly, but the casualty threshold you were willing to tolerate in one action didn't change.
That is my hypothesis anyway, the core flaw of which is that it is based largely on speculation. But whatever the reason, the result seems to be clear. And that is that more advanced weapons apparently do not make battles deadlier (it may not be valid to extrapolate that into the 21st or even 20th century since, again, it is harder to define the boundaries of a modern battle, so it's hard to do a one to one comparison with pre-20th century battles).
It is because the rifle muskets actually didn't effect the casualties at all. The rifled muskets extra advantage in accuracy was not improved due to the untrained soldiers of the Civil war and the enemy target being a line (which a slight spread wouldn't be very different). The smoothbore musket had a flatter trajectory therefore is more likely to cause more casualties in closer ranges. However, there are instances where rifled muskets fired in long ranges which a smoothbore can never achieve (but these were very rare). So rather than the bayonet casualties changes (it already accounted only 2% of the total wounds in the Napoleonic Wars), it is the fact that the firearm casualties never changed.
@@presidentlouis-napoleonbon8889 That might account for it if I had only noticed this pattern in conflicts featuring predominantly smoothbore muskets, and conflicts featuring predominantly rifled muskets. But the pattern holds even when single shot breech loading rifles enter the scene, and continues right through the era of smokeless powder magazine rifles. It seems that weapons do not effect casualty rates at all, no matter what weapons you have (provided that both sides have the same weapons, weapons technology will effect casualty rates only if one side has more advanced weapons than the other).
Now I have also written a whole series of arguments (mostly as part of a 3 page research paper I did for my English 100 class) on why I think rifled muskets didn't make anywhere near as significant a difference as everyone believes. But casualty rates never entered into those arguments for the reasons mentioned above. I am actually trying to track down a lead on what precisely the difference might have been by taking a closer look at the Crimean War. The Crimean War is the perfect conflict for those interested in the difference in effectiveness between rifled and smoothbore muskets as both sides were equipped with significant numbers of both rifled and smoothbore muskets (although the French and British generally had a substantially higher proportion of rifles than did the Russians). In order to even out differences in training or leadership I want to compare the performance of a number of individual regiments in just one army (that way they should all have the same training, and probably similar leadership), with some of those being regiments equipped with rifles, and some being regiments equipped with smoothbores. I am hoping that if rifles really do have a genuine battlefield advantage over smoothbores that should show up as the rifle equipped regiments performing better than the smoothbore equipped regiments. The only thing I am lacking at the moment is access to the combat records of individual regiments in the Crimean war.
As long as it is possible to run away, casualties rates is not effected by the arms, but entirely depended on the moral and discipline of the men... and tactics..
And across the musket period we see armies being able to take some 20-30 % casualties before loosing.
Only with machine guns and magazine fed rifles do we see units being wiped out because they in a way short time take massive looses and is not able to simply ruin away without getting shot in the back.
Even during the Napoleonic wars close combat was rare in the open field. (but common in towns and other defenses)
When a attack was made it was either stopped by firepower or the defender retreated before actual hand to hand combat.
So if both sides decide to stand and fire at 100yards, then casualties slowly go up over time for both sides often ending in both sides loosing 20%+ of their men in the involved units. With no clear result. other than a lot of dead men.
If one side have the superiority in numbers/moral/discipline to drive in a attack, then there is a quick result. Often with fewer casualties in total.
Toujours d’excellentes vidéos. Merci
Excellent video. Where did you find your 1861? She's a beauty and you shoot her so well.
Lol enemy will shit into his pants. Love this guy.
You should leave the spent cap on the Nipple while loading the next round. This will prevent oxygen from getting into the bore while loading the powder and ball. This is mentioned in the Light Infantry Tatics of 1860 in the U.S. Less chance of accidental discharge on a hot barrel firing 3 shots a minute.
I have heard, though not had personal experience, that a fixed bayonet _improves_ the accuracy of many rifles, as your experiment demonstrated.
What is the velocity here?
Fpe?
Looks slow wondering what energy was there.
Thanks! Great video as always.
Such is at least the case for Mosin Nagant rifles with a collar type bayonet. If I recall correctly they were sighted in with the bayonet attached.
I'm not reading through all 241 comments to see what's already been said so if I just duplicate another's comment, my apologies. This will be long and for that I also apologize.
I have enjoyed your posts for some time now but, I haven't visited very recently. I want to address a couple things in relation to this topic. First and foremost, you are making a potentially dangerous error in your reloading that could very well lead to an accidental discharge while ramming the bullet home. That being, the removal of the spent cap BEFORE recharge the load. Upon firing, leave the hammer and cap as they are dropping the butt preparatory to reloading. The reason being that the spent cap makes for a better air seal than the hammer alone which very well, even likely will not, be parallel with the cone's (nipple) rim. The danger is that following the powder charge, when ramming the bullet a column of air is forced down the barrel. If a significant amount of this air should blow up through the cone, it could fan any sparks left into life igniting the powder charge.
Once powder and ball are rammed and the rammer returned to it's slot, (or just jabbed into the ground as many soldiers often did in a fire fight) it is a simple matter to bring up the rifle, half cock the hammer, and install a new cap at this time or right before firing.
Now, where do I get off telling you (and any readers) about this? I am 65 years old. I was very interested in guns and the Civil War ever since I was in grade school and read everything I could get my hands on the subject. In 1972, I bought my first gun (though I already had some in my gun cabinet via my Dad). It was one of Val Forgett's reproduction "Remington Zouave" rifles, a Civil War era muzzle loader though there were relatively few originals made and they saw but little use. I used that and other muzzleloaders for hunting. Then I was a Civil War reneactor for about 5 years culminating in the 1980s 125th anniversary reenactments including 1988's Gettysburg, allegedly the biggest reenactment ever. I was "killed" there and thereby hangs a tale. Ask me if you're interested, else-wise I'll spare you. Finally, I am still shooting muzzle loaders today using as correct Civil War cartridges I make myself, both U.S. types for Springfields and P1853 (Enfields) rifle muskets with Minie' balls and both British and Confederate versions of British cartridges using "Pritchett balls."
So you see, I have extensive experience with muzzleloading rifles and techniques along with Civil War manuals on the subject.
I'll take a break and dump this on y'all then bring my comment on shooting with and w/out the bayonet, something I have done frequently, both ways.
I guess the rifle sway in War of Rights isn't realistic then
This may be difficult but could you do a video testing the accuracy of cavalry carbines and pistols while on horseback?
It looked like the bayonet did change the point of impact a bit. The second group was higher. It's a changed variable but it becomes a new constant.
Question: during battles involving the flintlock rifles/muskets, if the soldier's shot misfired (i.e. no spark, etc.) when given the order to fire, would the soldier immediately re-cock and try firing again? Or would they wait until the next order to fire to keep in line with the rest of the line?
I have to disagree with the importance of cavalry. In particular, the ability to mount a hot pursuit was essential to turn a battlefield success into a rout that crushed enemy cohesion, morale, and the ability to reform his troops.
Didn't they also tear the cartridge and dump the powder into the muzzle but keep it all together when ramming down? Paper and all?
Think this added muzzle weight dampens harmonics which might improve accuracy
What is more effective? Using bayonet that located on the left of the barrel of the right? (With musket)