When did rifling come into widespread use?
William Gray
know what widespread use means, but we could postulate that it means
whenever the US Army first issued a rifled weapon as general issue.
I told the guy that I thought rifled barrels were in use during the
Revolutionary War, but that I thought in general that rifled barrels
were not common until breechloading became the "normal" method of loading
since it gets hard to load a fouled bore with a snug bullet and a loose
bullet won't give good accuracy or range--which were the reasons for
rifling in the first place.
Therefore, I guessed that "widespread use" came after the Civil War.
But... I really don't know. I'd appreciate some informed replies, if
any of you have time and inclination. <g>
Thanks in advance,
Bill
--
"Veni, vidi, vomiti!" The ghost of Thomas Jefferson on reading the Brady Law.
gr...@icicle.winternet.mpls.mn.us
HENRY E SCHAFFER
#A colleeague asked me when rifling came into widespread use. I don't
#know what widespread use means, but we could postulate that it means
#whenever the US Army first issued a rifled weapon as general issue.
#
#I told the guy that I thought rifled barrels were in use during the
#Revolutionary War, but that I thought in general that rifled barrels
#were not common until breechloading became the "normal" method of loading
#since it gets hard to load a fouled bore with a snug bullet and a loose
#bullet won't give good accuracy or range--which were the reasons for
#rifling in the first place.
#
#Therefore, I guessed that "widespread use" came after the Civil War.
From the NRA Firearms Fact Book (a real treasure of a small,
inexpensive reference book - let me know if you want a book review of
this one):(emphasis added by me)
c. 1742 A treatise by Benjamin Robins advanced the theory that cutting
spiral grooves in the inner barrel surfact would impart a stabilizing
rotation to the projectile on its passage through the bore that would
continue in flight.
1776 Ferguson *rifles* ordered by the British Army. These flintlock
*breechloaders*, designed by Major Patrick Ferguson and used by his
troops at the battle of Kings Mountain, represented the first
significant use of breechloaders by a military force.
# ...
--henry schaffer
Bart Bobbitt
Rifle?' Those things were used about 100 years before the war between
the USA states. I don't remember what continent/country first had one
made by some local 'smith, but it was in either the late 1600s or
early 1700s. I may be off a couple dozen years.
BB
Dan Sorenson
#c. 1742 A treatise by Benjamin Robins advanced the theory that cutting
#spiral grooves in the inner barrel surfact would impart a stabilizing
#rotation to the projectile on its passage through the bore that would
#continue in flight.
Several years ago I wrote a small research paper on the
history of naval weapons. One factoid I recall was that some
Duke or Count theorized, circa 1650 or 1550, that the reason
a spinning bullet did not deflect from its path was because
no demon or spirit could sit astride a spinning bullet, and
thus could not cause it to veer from its course.
So apparently rifling was known at least a century before
Robins wrote his treatise. I wonder if this came from the
practice of placing the fletching on arrows in a slight spiral?
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
HENRY E SCHAFFER
#h...@unity.ncsu.edu (HENRY E SCHAFFER) writes:
#
##c. 1742 A treatise by Benjamin Robins advanced the theory that cutting
##spiral grooves in the inner barrel surfact would impart a stabilizing
##rotation to the projectile on its passage through the bore that would
##continue in flight.
#
# Several years ago I wrote a small research paper on the
#history of naval weapons. One factoid I recall was that some
#Duke or Count theorized, circa 1650 or 1550, that the reason
#a spinning bullet did not deflect from its path was because
#no demon or spirit could sit astride a spinning bullet, and
#thus could not cause it to veer from its course.
Hmm -
#
# So apparently rifling was known at least a century before
#Robins wrote his treatise. I wonder if this came from the
#practice of placing the fletching on arrows in a slight spiral?
There have been many cases of people publishing theories on the
working of something which was already in use. The earliest relevant
date given in this brief history was
"c. 1542 Straight "rifling" becomes available in shoulder arms. It is
believed that the grooving of the barrels was as an aid to loading,
rather than a deliberate attempt to gain accuracy."
So at least some of the technology was there 130 years earlier. I'm
not much of a history buff, and don't have many historically oriented
references. It would be nice if someone more knowledgeable about these
historical aspects could fill in some more.
--henry schaffer
William Gray
#In article <gray.76...@winternet.mpls.mn.us> gr...@winternet.mpls.mn.us
#(William Gray) writes:
##I told the guy that I thought rifled barrels were in use during the
##Revolutionary War, but that I thought in general that rifled barrels
##were not common until breechloading became the "normal" method of loading
##since it gets hard to load a fouled bore with a snug bullet and a loose
##bullet won't give good accuracy or range--which were the reasons for
##rifling in the first place.
##
##Therefore, I guessed that "widespread use" came after the Civil War.
#Actually, I believe they became common just before the Civil War, with
#the invention of the Minie ball. The problem with muzzleloading rifles
#had been that they were slow to load...but the Minie balls were smaller
#than the rifle bore, with a soft base that expands to fill the bore and
#grip the rifling upon being fired.
Hmmm. Ok, maybe so.
So when was the Minie developed?
I _thought_ the Minie was a musket round that was in use as early as
the French and Indian War. I remember reading someone in Fidonet's
Firearms echo commenting onthe fouling barrels and using undersized balls
to be able to load and how the Minie was an improvement since the flared base
expanded when the musket was fired and formed a better gas seal. (I did not
get the impression that the skirt on the Minie was large enough to engage the
rifling securely enough to impart spin enough to do the job well enough.
Is my confusion clear enough? :)
Anyway, Don, thanks for the reply. Y'all keep those cards and letters coming,
hear?
Frank Ball
& A colleeague asked me when rifling came into widespread use. I don't
& know what widespread use means, but we could postulate that it means
& whenever the US Army first issued a rifled weapon as general issue.
I haven't found any clear information on when rifling was first used,
but it goes back 300 years or so. The US military didn't start using
rifling until just before the civil war, but cilivians commonly had rifled
rifles for over 100 years before that. The military stuck to muskets
(smoothbores) because they were easier to load, and they had sufficient
range for the military fighting techinques of the time. Handguns seem
to have adopted rifling later than rifles. Some of the older handguns
were rifled, but it wasn't really common until the Colt revolvers came
out in the mid 1800s. Many of the early handguns had brass barrels,
so rifling wouldn't have held up through much use. The Harpers Ferry
rifle was adopted in 1804 (give or take a couple years) and was a .54
caliber rifle, but that was the exception to the rule, and is the earliest
american military rifle.
--
Frank Ball 1UR-M fra...@sad.hp.com (707) 794-4168 work,
Hewlett Packard (707) 794-3844 fax, (707) 538-3693 home
1212 Valley House Drive IT175, XT350, Seca 750, '62 F-100, PL510
Rohnert Park CA 94928-4999 KC6WUG, LAW, AMA, Dod #7566, NMLRA, NRA.
Peter Kammer
#"c. 1542 Straight "rifling" becomes available in shoulder arms. It is
#believed that the grooving of the barrels was as an aid to loading,
#rather than a deliberate attempt to gain accuracy."
I was given the impression through one source or another that grooves
were originally introduced to collect powder and increase the number of
rounds that could be fired before the barrel fouled. The legend being that
spiral grooves collected more powder and the introduction of the
stabilizing effect was "accidental." *shrug* Just range legend.
-Peter
--------
Peter Kammer "I believe in getting into hot
pka...@ics.uci.edu water; it keeps you clean."
203p...@vax.stmarytx.edu -- G. K. Chesterton
Don Baldwin
(William Gray) writes:
#I told the guy that I thought rifled barrels were in use during the
#Revolutionary War, but that I thought in general that rifled barrels
#were not common until breechloading became the "normal" method of loading
#since it gets hard to load a fouled bore with a snug bullet and a loose
#bullet won't give good accuracy or range--which were the reasons for
#rifling in the first place.
#
Actually, I believe they became common just before the Civil War, with
the invention of the Minie ball. The problem with muzzleloading rifles
had been that they were slow to load...but the Minie balls were smaller
than the rifle bore, with a soft base that expands to fill the bore and
grip the rifling upon being fired.
The rifled musket and the Sharps carbine (which held multiple shots and
was loaded from the breech, so you didn't have to stand up to reload)
were two of the most important developments in small arms of the time...
and were (according to one book I've read) responsible for the high
casualty rates of the Civil War.
Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So as not to make the same mistake twice, don't travel to Maine because
it also has dangerously-lax gun laws. Last year we had two dozen murders
out of a population of 1.2 million. Plainly, you're better off staying
in places where handguns have been effectively outlawed, like D.C. and
New York City.
- posted in talk.politics.guns
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin - e-mail to: do...@netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Crary
#Actually, I believe they became common just before the Civil War, with
#the invention of the Minie ball. The problem with muzzleloading rifles
#had been that they were slow to load...
Pretty much. Rifles were in common use during the American Revolution
and (I believe) the Seven-Years War (French and Indian War). At the
time, the rifle wasn't much of an advantage: Since it was slower
to reload, the same number of shots could be fired at advancing
troops from a musket. Is two or three shots fired slowly starting
at 200 m range better than the same number of shots fired more
rapidly starting at a range of 100 m? That depends on the skill
of the rifleman. European armies of the time relied on mass
fire, with little or no aiming, to disrupt the enemy as much
from confusion and fear as from actual damage. For them, the
rifle offered no clear advantage. For American militias, skilled
from hunting and able to take advantage of range and time to aim,
the rifle was more useful that the musket. Until the American Civil
War, it was a toss-up. Depending on the troops, their tactics and training,
the rifle wasn't clearly superior to the musket. With the advent of the
Minie ball and later the breach-loading rifle, the rifle could
fire as rapidly as a musket. They removed the disadvantages of
the rifle and made it the clearly superior firearm.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Joel Upchurch
# The rifled musket and the Sharps carbine (which held multiple shots and
# was loaded from the breech, so you didn't have to stand up to reload)
# were two of the most important developments in small arms of the time...
# and were (according to one book I've read) responsible for the high
# casualty rates of the Civil War.
I think you got the Sharps mixed up with the Spencer rifle. The Sharps
was a single shot using a paper cartridge. The Spencer had a magazine
tube in the stock. The Union Army bought 60,000 of them during the
war. You might remember the Spencer rifle Morgan Freeman had in the
movie "Unforgiven".
The Henry rifle was also widely used during the war, but the Union
Army didn't buy many of them.
Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting uunet!aaahq01!upchrch!joel
718 Galsworthy Ave. Orlando, FL 32809-6429 phone (407) 859-0982
Frank Crary
The Polymath <holl...@polymath.tti.com> wrote:
#}... With the advent of the
#}Minie ball and later the breach-loading rifle, the rifle could
#}fire as rapidly as a musket. They removed the disadvantages of
#}the rifle and made it the clearly superior firearm.
#I would think changing battle tactics had an effect, too. Once the
#generals figured out it wasn't smart to advance en masse towards hundreds
#of loaded muskets, the rifle became more useful.
I think you have cause and effect backwards here. During the American
Revolution and the Napolionic Wars, general did order advances against
massed musket fire, and did so very effectively. Once their troops
closed to bayonet range, they could more than make up for the losses
to ranged gunfire. The battle tactics changed only when this sort
of charge stopped working. With the Minie ball and the breach-loading
rifle, gunfire could easily brake a charge before it closed to
bayonet range. General during the American Civil War learned this
the hard way, at places like Cemetery Ridge and Antietam. The
change in tactics followed the improvements in technology.
#Surprisingly, it took WWI generals quite a while to stop making the same
#mistake with machineguns. Those who do not learn from history ...
Not entirely surprising. The generals in question were European. American
commanders learned the lesson of a very painful civil war. They didn't
learn quickly or easily; many insisted on charges against massed
formations well after the clear evidence showed how worthless this
tactic was. It took years of painful lessons for the message to
sink in. Europe, on the other hand, had only the Franco-Prussian
war to learn from. (The colonial wars and the the various revolutions
were not fought against well-armed, organized troops.) In contrast
to the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian conflict was mild
and civilized; the lesson of charges against defensive firepower
was much less clear. Keagan, in fact, refers to the concept of
"firepower" (as opposed to manpower) as an American invention. So
the European generals went into the First World War with an
expectation that massed charges worked, and with a total lack
of understanding for defensive firepower. Well, I guess they
learned the hard way as well.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
Edward J. Rudnicki (FSS
#In article <1994Mar8.2...@ttinews.tti.com>,
#The Polymath <holl...@polymath.tti.com> wrote:
##Surprisingly, it took WWI generals quite a while to stop making the same
##mistake with machineguns. Those who do not learn from history ...
#
#Not entirely surprising. The generals in question were European. American
#commanders learned the lesson of a very painful civil war. They didn't
#learn quickly or easily; many insisted on charges against massed
#formations well after the clear evidence showed how worthless this
#tactic was. It took years of painful lessons for the message to
#sink in. Europe, on the other hand, had only the Franco-Prussian
#war to learn from. (The colonial wars and the the various revolutions
#were not fought against well-armed, organized troops.) In contrast
#to the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian conflict was mild
#and civilized; the lesson of charges against defensive firepower
#was much less clear. Keagan, in fact, refers to the concept of
#"firepower" (as opposed to manpower) as an American invention. So
#the European generals went into the First World War with an
#expectation that massed charges worked, and with a total lack
#of understanding for defensive firepower. Well, I guess they
#learned the hard way as well.
It's not quite as excusable as that.
The Russians mounted two frontal assaults against the Turks during
the siege of Plevna in 1877. Allowing for customary losses when
facing the usual breechloading single shot cartridge arms of the
day, they should have been successful due to available manpower. The
Turks stopped them by attrition with longer than usual range rifle
fire, and finally with Winchester lever action repeaters at close
range.
The Russo-Japanese war was in many ways a preview of the Great War,
including machine guns and trench warfare.
In both cases there was a European power, Russia, involved. Perhaps
Russia was viwed as "backward", and beneath looking at as an
example.
Ed Rudnicki erud...@pica.army.mil All disclaimers apply
The Bill of Rights "A noble experiment" 1791-1993 Rest in Peace
James P. Callison
Edward J. Rudnicki (FSS <erud...@pica.army.mil> wrote:
#In article <2lp68g$8...@xring.cs.umd.edu> fcr...@benji.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
##In article <1994Mar8.2...@ttinews.tti.com>,
##The Polymath <holl...@polymath.tti.com> wrote:
###Surprisingly, it took WWI generals quite a while to stop making the same
###mistake with machineguns. Those who do not learn from history ...
##
##Not entirely surprising. The generals in question were European. American
##commanders learned the lesson of a very painful civil war. They didn't
##learn quickly or easily; many insisted on charges against massed
##formations well after the clear evidence showed how worthless this
##tactic was. It took years of painful lessons for the message to
##sink in. Europe, on the other hand, had only the Franco-Prussian
##war to learn from. (The colonial wars and the the various revolutions
##were not fought against well-armed, organized troops.)
<Stuff about Franco-Prussian War, etc, deleted>
#It's not quite as excusable as that.
#
#The Russians mounted two frontal assaults against the Turks during
#the siege of Plevna in 1877. Allowing for customary losses when
#facing the usual breechloading single shot cartridge arms of the
#day, they should have been successful due to available manpower. The
#Turks stopped them by attrition with longer than usual range rifle
#fire, and finally with Winchester lever action repeaters at close
#range.
#
#The Russo-Japanese war was in many ways a preview of the Great War,
#including machine guns and trench warfare.
#
#In both cases there was a European power, Russia, involved. Perhaps
#Russia was viwed as "backward", and beneath looking at as an
#example.
As a friend of mine pointed out, the _British_, at least, should
have learned it during the Boer Wars--they faced both the Maxim
machineguns and Mauser rifles, and took heavy casualties at the
muzzle end of both. Just like in WWI. Hmmm...
Of course, _everybody_ screws up in war--after all, WE trained with
M14s, then handed soldiers M16s when they got off the planes in 'Nam...
James
James P. Callison Microcomputer Coordinator, U of Oklahoma Law Center
Call...@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu /\ Call...@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
DISCLAIMER: I'm not an engineer, but I play one at work...
The forecast calls for Thunder...'89 T-Bird SC
#28, Davey Allison #7, Alan Kulwicki
1993 IROC Champion 1992 Winston Cup Champion
You rode the Thunder, Now, may the Thunderbird carry you home...
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he has
and all he's ever gonna have."
--Will Munny, "Unforgiven"