Talk:Rifled musket

message: Rifled Musket is a misnomer.  A Musket by definition is a smoothbore weapon.1  So there can be no such thing as a rifled musket.
1.musket. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/musket  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.52 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  misnomer 

message: Muskets had to be long enough for the muzzles of the rear rank’s muskets to project well forward of the faces of the front rank. The muzzle flash of such weapons is formidable - to have one going off inches away from a soldier’s face would have been at least distracting, at worst physically dangerous... Since they weren’t fired over other men’s shoulders military rifles could be much shorter than muskets—Surely the barrel length is dictated by the desired muzzle velocity, and is nothing to do with the comfort of the front rank. When firing in three ranks the barrel length would make little difference, and the muzzle flash is directed forward. These statements should come out unless supported by citations.
Less sure about this one, but aren't the problems of fouling more to do with loss of performance than physical difficulty in loading, with any reduction in rate of fire being due to the need for cleaning? Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it's not only muzzle velocity but accuracy.  A rifled barrel requires less length for the same degree of accuracy as an equally sized bore musket.  Fouling causes problems with both performance and rate of fire.  From personal experience I can testify that there's a lot more effort in loading a muzzle loader where the barrel is fouled and the risk of misfire is increased. I agree with you that these statements should come out as misleading in their reasoning although the conclusion about the effect of muzzle flash I would agree with. Someone elses muzzle flash a few inches from your head is disconcerting :-) NtheP (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing this up Engineer comp geek. In a NGC documentary I saw, a schematic was shown indicating the opposite. However, reading your info, I believe that your are right instead and the documentary needs an update. I however still don't quite understand why this Minié ball then needed to be made, regular balls simply follow the spin of the rifling, hereby already improving their accuracy.
KVDP (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious unreferenced statements 

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

message: As a layman, I came here to learn the difference between a rifled musket and a rifle.  There is nothing here that definitively says.  Does anyone writing this even know?
It sounds to me that the term "rifled musket" is just a self-contradicting misnomer, and this article should be deleted entirely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.109.15 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the difference already? 

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

message: *Rifled muskets were used very successfully by Morgan's Riflemen during the American Revolutionary way. They were used to snipe British troops from a longer distance than their smoothbore muskets could reach, a tactic that was unusual during that time period. But even though it was an unusual strategy it was without a doubt a useful one and played a pretty big role in the war. Rifled muskets were also used successfully in the War of 1812 with small groups of riflemen, like Morgan's Riflemen during the war of 1812, exploited the rifles to pick off enemy units from a range without endangering themselves.
The article seems to say that the "Rifled musket" was developed in the 1840s. See also the discussion above.  The Morgan's Riflemen article says 
*...[the unit] was equipped with what was then the cutting-edge rifle instead of muskets, allowing superior accuracy at an up to ten times the distance of the typical troops of the day.Smoothbore Musket Versus the Long Rifle in the Revolutionary War
 can you find a source that talks about the use of rifled muskets in these two wars? Felsic2 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should write articles based on assumptions, especially when it comes to things like this. I'm no expert, but it appears that there are three different things: muskets, rifles, and rifled muskets. If Morgan's Riflemen and other units in the two wars then there should be a source that says so. I suggest looking at the articles you listed and checking their references to see if they mention the use of rifled muskets. Felsic2 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolutionary War and War of 1812 

message: This edit says categorically that "rifled musket" was only used for muskets that were converted to rifles, and "rifle musket" (without the "d") was only for rifles manufactured as such. I can't find any evidence that this sharp distinction was observed at the time. For example, this HistoryNet article quotes an 1862 letter from a Union soldier discussing the Springfield 1861, a weapon manufactured with rifling, which he refers to as a "rifled musket."
I've reverted that bit to the the previous, less prescriptive text, and also added "rifle-musket" as a third spelling found particularly in British texts. More precise updates are welcome, but should cite sources. Phasma Felis (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference (or lack thereof) between "rifled musket" and "rifle musket" 

message: A rifled musket is identical to a smoothbore musket except that the barrel is rifled.  It is a muzzle loading long gun.  The term "rifle" used separately generally refers to a breech loading long gun or medium gun.  The article states that the range was immaterial.  That is just plain false.  Smooth bore muskets were accurate to about 100 yards.  The projectile would be lethal at 300 or perhaps 400 yards but you wouldn't hit what you were aiming at.  So smoothbore muskets could be used effectively to those ranges only with massed line firing.  Skirmishers were best equipped with the rifled musket as they could sit off at 300 yards and pick off individual targets while no one using a smoothbore could return effective fire.  It would have to be returned en masse, which still wouldn't be very effective as the skirmisher would go prone or use some cover.  Also, the skirmisher wouldn't be greatly impeded by the black powder smoke since he was widely spaced from his compatriots and firing at will rather than on command.  Importantly, rifled muskets took considerably longer to load and were more difficult to use with trainee soldiers.  So, smoothbores continued to be used up to and including the Civil War because they were cheaper and because the Union Army in particular had a lot of inexperienced civilians drafted into service.  For that reason line tactics continued to be the norm.
     Now, the issue of the American experience includes the circumstances leading to the US Constitution's Second Amendment.  Frontiersmen (this term would include farmers as well as trappers and other lines of work) could not afford not to have rifled muskets as opposed to smoothbores for purposes of subsistence hunting and Indian fighting, and would bear that high cost in order to have one.  Although the Second Amendment does not specifically mention rifled muskets or rifles, that is exactly what is being referred to by "keep and bear arms".  As the US did not much like the idea of standing armies and what they tended to have was not much of one, the country was dependent in extremis on the militias, which consisted of well trained civilians who supplied their own rifled muskets.  In addition, all rifle muskets were registered with the government so that the weapon itself could be drafted if the owner was not in a militia or not able to fight.  How terribly important this is and the reason why it was important enough to lead to that Amendment can be understood by studying the Battle of Saratoga.  The British regulars were equipped with smoothbore muskets as was standard for the time.  The colonial rebels were largely equipped with rifle muskets accurate to 300 yards and wielded by people who in the course of their lives found it necessary to be able to hit targets at such ranges.  Due to the terrain the battle was occurring in artillery was of little if any utility and line tactics were useless against skirmishers who were taking advantage of what cover the terrain offered (which was considerable) who could pick off enemy soldiers at 300 yards while those soldiers could basically do nothing about it in return.  One could make the argument that the Revolutionary War was won by the rifle musket.  As stated earlier, the US was not keen to have a large standing army and it wasn't keen on equipping such a standing army as it had with expensive rifle muskets, the 2nd Amendment made tremendous sense as the defense of the nation was highly dependent on trained civilian militias armed with their own personal rifle muskets.Ealtram (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rifled musket not a misnomer.  Any discussion of the American experience of the late 18th Century is lacking.