If you load muskets correctly you can hit people at 100 yards with reasonable consistency. Note: military cartridges lend themselves to speed, not accuracy. To get accuracy you need a tight fitting ball and a very stout power charge.
It's not the cartridge that adds speed, it's drill. Prussian and British line companies were drilled to fire volleys at 4 to 5 shots per minute at best, before exhaustion and discord reduces their fire rate to 2 shots per minute. Tight fitting balls would slow down reloading time, but rifled barrels would require a tight fit to maximize the rifling's effect in allowing the musketball to spin and become more aerodynamic stable, and permitting skirmishers to pick down specific targets, as did the 96th Rifles in the Peninsular Campaign. Smoothbore muskets are accurate within 80 yards, but rifles could hit a target well beyond 200 yards. For the unfortunate souls who had to fight in line battalions up close to enemy ranks formed in line, they didn't need to aim at specific targets; instead, they could just aim at the tightly formed mass of men. However, there were crack shots with the smoothbore musket who were assigned as flanquers or voltigeurs. They are either light infantry or dedicated smoothbore skirmishers like the ones Napoleon had, and both their goal is to harass or thin down enemy line battalions while preventing enemy skirmishers from doing just that. Even if they're very skilled with smoothbore muskets, chances of hitting a bullseye on the top of someone's head beyond 100 yards still lay under the mercy of RNGesus.
@D Anemon reference please thanks cause I think they also did what the British did, and it was tap dropping the ball or something instead of using the ramrod
Why I have to watch English videos when I search information about French firearms ? Thanks God USA exist otherwise nobody will share his interest on a lot of firearms (sorry for my bad English^^)
the French government supplied large quantities of muskets to the Continental army. Several arsenals in France produced muskets but the Charleville Model 1763 was the most common and soon all French muskets were referred to as "Charlevilles." In March 1777, some 25,000 Charleville muskets were received from France. George Washington implemented a resolution by the Continental Congress to stamp firearms as United States property to reduce theft.
How did we beat the British? Shear determination. I can think of no battle before the American revolution were every single soldier had a chance to “own” a piece of what they were fighting for.
The musket he’s using is a copy of a light model 1763 Charleville musket sometimes referred to as a 1766 because of its production year. I’ve had one of these from Navy Arms for about 28 years. Probably the best flintlock smoothbore I’ve ever used.
@@knightowl3577 when a British captive officer challenged french Navy officer Surcouf with the words "You French fight for money while we fight for honour", Surcouf replied "Each of us fights for what he lacks most".
Well dummy proof for one. Dummy proof weapons will attract all sorts. Weapons that have instructions printed on them. As opposed to a weapon that requires aptitude that can only be acquired through live fire. Then a bayonet attack was always close, which is a whole other beast all together. 1700-1900 appeals to me for some reason. Muskets allowed for battles to become more complex, as opposed to large contingents of soldiers being thrown together in one giant mob hacking away. Muskets meant you could actually fire and maneuver, and made your opponent reconsider launching a simple frontal attack. Then it became about weakening and exposing flanks, using skirmishers, sharpshooters to disrupt the chain of command. Volley fire could last for quite awhile, so a bayonet charge then became a way to surprise your opponent. 1700-1900 was a mix between Age of Chivalry type warfare and that of War which resembled the 20th century, where it was possible to shoot at your enemy for days without actually seeing them. Tech allows for more humanity in battles, but as I said it can attract all sorts. It also creates longer lulls during battles and certainly less numerical and less gruesome casualties.
Another point of interest in the 1700-1900 time period is the INCREDIBLE advance in technology, as it concerns firearms at least. From the flintlock of the 1700s and earlier, through the percussion lock, and the percussion revolvers, to the metallic cartridge breechloaders, lever actions, to the semiautomatic pistols (rifles took a bit longer). In just 200 years, we went from the flintlock, horse and buggy, to the semiautomatic pistols and early automobiles. In even shorter time we went from a "box kite with a motor" to the MOON! And yet, we seem to have stalled, plateaued, and stagnated.
British do not use the command Take aim, but rather Present, so the idea is that the soldiers just be there pointing gun at the general direction of the enemy. Do American soldiers actually take good aim when given the command?
My favourite uniforms are the mid to late 19th century ones, they're much more practical and have got rid of any element that serves no real purpose on the battlefield but keep the bright colours. Also the British army in this period effectively made having a large moustache part of their uniform for soldiers and NCOs you've got to respect that.
If your hunting game up close maby but no during actual war fair you want a ball or ball and maby a few buck that was shown in some military cartridges but extremely uncommon
I know I'm late to the party here in 2022 but sometimes men did use a form of "shot". It was called "buck and ball". It was basically a musket ball and 3 smaller balls on top to give it more of a spread. Some muskets were found a few months ago that had X-rays done on them and they were loaded with buck and ball shot.
@@zacharybatten wasnt inaccurate at all. It was necessarily a bit condensed for tourists, but I've studied this period all my life, even done two university thesis on it. He knows what hes talking about.
I'm no expert on muskets but that guy has fired my enthusiasm! Making the audience laugh is a great way of educating. Thanks for sharing this video.
If you load muskets correctly you can hit people at 100 yards with reasonable consistency. Note: military cartridges lend themselves to speed, not accuracy. To get accuracy you need a tight fitting ball and a very stout power charge.
It's not the cartridge that adds speed, it's drill. Prussian and British line companies were drilled to fire volleys at 4 to 5 shots per minute at best, before exhaustion and discord reduces their fire rate to 2 shots per minute. Tight fitting balls would slow down reloading time, but rifled barrels would require a tight fit to maximize the rifling's effect in allowing the musketball to spin and become more aerodynamic stable, and permitting skirmishers to pick down specific targets, as did the 96th Rifles in the Peninsular Campaign.
Smoothbore muskets are accurate within 80 yards, but rifles could hit a target well beyond 200 yards. For the unfortunate souls who had to fight in line battalions up close to enemy ranks formed in line, they didn't need to aim at specific targets; instead, they could just aim at the tightly formed mass of men.
However, there were crack shots with the smoothbore musket who were assigned as flanquers or voltigeurs. They are either light infantry or dedicated smoothbore skirmishers like the ones Napoleon had, and both their goal is to harass or thin down enemy line battalions while preventing enemy skirmishers from doing just that. Even if they're very skilled with smoothbore muskets, chances of hitting a bullseye on the top of someone's head beyond 100 yards still lay under the mercy of RNGesus.
@@VentiVonOsterreich if you wanna fire 5 rounds a minute your gonna have to load every 15 seconds. That sounds like heat exhaustion
@@bigmoniesponge That's pretty much why officers expected soldiers to end up firing at will after the first few volleys
@D Anemon reference please thanks cause I think they also did what the British did, and it was tap dropping the ball or something instead of using the ramrod
@@VentiVonOsterreich the tap load was only used in a BBC mini series
Knowledgeable guy thanks for the upload.
Joel Vihaan nobody asked dipshit.
This guy is just repeating ignorance from the history channel
"With some help of the French"
Yeah "some" help 😂
Great video. I think he downplayed the amount of help the French gave to the US though lol.
When muzzle loading rifles were made in the 18th century it would come with a lead mold that was the sized to the bore of that particular rifle
It's a musket, not a rifle..
Vive la France!
Why I have to watch English videos when I search information about French firearms ? Thanks God USA exist otherwise nobody will share his interest on a lot of firearms (sorry for my bad English^^)
the French government supplied large quantities of muskets to the Continental army. Several arsenals in France produced muskets but the Charleville Model 1763 was the most common and soon all French muskets were referred to as "Charlevilles." In March 1777, some 25,000 Charleville muskets were received from France. George Washington implemented a resolution by the Continental Congress to stamp firearms as United States property to reduce theft.
Very professional
Vive L'Empereur!!
My 1795 Springfield is an improved knockoff of this. Even with a running ball not patched. Fabulously accurate for a smoothbore with no rear sight.
How did we beat the British? Shear determination. I can think of no battle before the American revolution were every single soldier had a chance to “own” a piece of what they were fighting for.
The brown bess was a copy of the 1777 because the 1777 was a good model,everybody at the time copied the Charleville and yes Vive la France ! :)
For King & Country!
I like the charleville musket.. coos 69cal. Has bit accuracy than brown bess.. 75cal.
The musket he’s using is a copy of a light model 1763 Charleville musket sometimes referred to as a 1766 because of its production year. I’ve had one of these from Navy Arms for about 28 years. Probably the best flintlock smoothbore I’ve ever used.
@@zarkoon3155 cool thanks for the info.. teach me one hehehe will try to shoot.
vtwintora yes the Charleville was a beloved musket. The US army copied the Charleville in their models 1795-1842 muskets.
Plus ! the ball of the french musket was smaller because compared to the english the balls was lighter to carry then the English balls
@john Mullholand Oh my god! and me being french lol
But in our defense, they do come out with a bang :)
@john Mullholand I can't stop laughing, thank you for that. You made my morning.
@john Mullholand that one came back kicking me in the nuts, lol.
All joking aside, well said.
We English have always known the French are lacking when it comes to balls!
@@knightowl3577 when a British captive officer challenged french Navy officer Surcouf with the words "You French fight for money while we fight for honour", Surcouf replied "Each of us fights for what he lacks most".
Vive lafayette. De grasse et rochambeau. Et vive la France.
He made a mistake, a firelock is a musket WITHOUT bajonet. With it its called ARMS
I want to shoot a musket one day
I have two Springfield 1862s which are technically rifles but are still muzzle loaders, have not shot them yet but would love to as well.
What sutler did you get those overalls from?
Sorry, I was the one recording
He could have made them himself. That’s what a lot of reenactors do
Well dummy proof for one. Dummy proof weapons will attract all sorts. Weapons that have instructions printed on them. As opposed to a weapon that requires aptitude that can only be acquired through live fire. Then a bayonet attack was always close, which is a whole other beast all together. 1700-1900 appeals to me for some reason. Muskets allowed for battles to become more complex, as opposed to large contingents of soldiers being thrown together in one giant mob hacking away. Muskets meant you could actually fire and maneuver, and made your opponent reconsider launching a simple frontal attack. Then it became about weakening and exposing flanks, using skirmishers, sharpshooters to disrupt the chain of command. Volley fire could last for quite awhile, so a bayonet charge then became a way to surprise your opponent. 1700-1900 was a mix between Age of Chivalry type warfare and that of War which resembled the 20th century, where it was possible to shoot at your enemy for days without actually seeing them. Tech allows for more humanity in battles, but as I said it can attract all sorts. It also creates longer lulls during battles and certainly less numerical and less gruesome casualties.
Well u do have a point here..
But bullets is just brutal when it hits U aww... pluss warfare grew stronger with this.
To be fair, the Persians at Thermopylae were using skirmishers and volley fire, and some of those ancient battles were pretty complicated.
Another point of interest in the 1700-1900 time period is the INCREDIBLE advance in technology, as it concerns firearms at least. From the flintlock of the 1700s and earlier, through the percussion lock, and the percussion revolvers, to the metallic cartridge breechloaders, lever actions, to the semiautomatic pistols (rifles took a bit longer). In just 200 years, we went from the flintlock, horse and buggy, to the semiautomatic pistols and early automobiles. In even shorter time we went from a "box kite with a motor" to the MOON! And yet, we seem to have stalled, plateaued, and stagnated.
British do not use the command Take aim, but rather Present, so the idea is that the soldiers just be there pointing gun at the general direction of the enemy. Do American soldiers actually take good aim when given the command?
You still aim the piece, the muskets do have sights
@@Bountyhopper Muskets have bayonet lugs not sights.
@@denishannan3912 they have sights behind the lug
@@Bountyhopper Check the video there isn't any sight behind the lug.
I own a charleville and I’ve seen multiple Brown Besses
These late colonial uniforms are my favourite. The Napoleonic uniforms just lack a sense of style compared to this.
I agree. The early 18th century stuff is nice too.
My favourite uniforms are the mid to late 19th century ones, they're much more practical and have got rid of any element that serves no real purpose on the battlefield but keep the bright colours.
Also the British army in this period effectively made having a large moustache part of their uniform for soldiers and NCOs you've got to respect that.
That's why someone said "Shoot them once your able to see their eyes"
Then jump out and finish em with your hatchet
that rooster in the backround is upset
Musket is basically a primitive shotgun. I would recommend loading shot in it rather than a single ball.
Because you are not educated about firearms?
If your hunting game up close maby but no during actual war fair you want a ball or ball and maby a few buck that was shown in some military cartridges but extremely uncommon
Then you clearly don’t know about the musketoon and the blunderbuss
I know I'm late to the party here in 2022 but sometimes men did use a form of "shot". It was called "buck and ball". It was basically a musket ball and 3 smaller balls on top to give it more of a spread. Some muskets were found a few months ago that had X-rays done on them and they were loaded with buck and ball shot.
French we’re cool trying out to get Americans up it footing
Alliance
Ya comete la maldita naranja
Sorry i thought we gave you America because we were too busy with the war in Europe!
Does the big stomach comes with the costume as well?
So does your need to be a douche bag come from your parents being cousins?
Too bad that this 'Dude" is content to parrot the typical series of misunderstandings & myths, all of which further confuses the visiting public.
Sorry but full of inaccurate information, nice uniform though.
Can't say anything to it as I was just recording, but if true that's kinda sad
Can you give me some examples
@@zacharybatten wasnt inaccurate at all. It was necessarily a bit condensed for tourists, but I've studied this period all my life, even done two university thesis on it. He knows what hes talking about.
@@AtheAetheling Thanks for your input!
Sounded right to me. Simplified, sure
69. Caliber, Nice.