Gentlemen:

I will be writing a paper on how the rifled barrel has impacted warfare. Predominantly, I think I'd like to use the Civil War as an example, wherever possible. However, it occurs to me that, in doing my research, I have several valuable sources of information available to me -- right here on the gunsmithing forum.

Can any of you good people point me to reference materials that might help me? I figure if anyone would know about books that would help me, it would be you folks.

I'm not looking to restrict myself to "rifles," just "rifled barrels." Therefore, anything going from smoothbore to rifled, where a bore is concerned, would be something in which I'd be interested. Again, I need to show how "rifling" (not "rifles") impacted warfare.

Thanks.

Russ

I think the "rifled" barrel was used some in the Revoluntionary War but was too slow to load as the ball had to be pounded down the barrel.

However, an English Officer in South Carolina, came up with a breach loading rifle barrel. After his death, it was forgotten.

The big advance in rifled barrels came with design of the minnie ball which allowed faster reloading.

I'll see if I can come up with some names. Most of this has been on the "History Channel"

Ferguson Rifle



and this History Link

Russell,

I have a couple of English references I will send along tonight. I am away just now...jim

Russell,
there's a couple "issues" for modern use. And yep, the ferguson was the first useful breechloader used in war...

1: muskets (unrifled) were far faster to load, with the technology available.

2: rifled barrels are far more accuarate (400 yards vs 85 yards for a brown bess)

3: the "reason" that the musketis faster is two fold, that the ball was smaller than bore (could be DROPPED into the muzzle for a loss of speed, but faster fire) and that the patching cloth was far softer and therefore easier to jam in the barrel.Remember, muskets don't have rifling to engage.


3.1 bullets, while close in diameter, were nearly NEVER the same diamter

4: the advent of the Minnie (men-yea or men-nay) ball, with the original steel insert, allowed for an undersized bullet to be rammed into the barrel of a RIFLE at the speeds of a muzzle loader. The function of the minie ball was to EXPAND on firing, obturating (engraving) into the rifling, imparting spin.

4 above allowed for rates of fire approaching that, or in cases FASTER than a usket (no patches to handle) with the long range accuracy of the rifle.

It has been conjectured that part of the higher numbers of battle casualities of the war of northern agression were due to the rapid fire AND range of the minnie, as conicals have greater carrying range due to BC and rifles are for more accurate (especially long range) than muskets.

Pre-US CW, the firearms was used as an extended range spear, so to speak, with armies forming up, marching towards each other, and exchanging fire only at extemely close range. The fact of the matter is that archers had a great distance effect (150-200 yards ) Much like the crossbow, though, the musket required but ONE HIT to remove an enemy, regardless of armour.

With the minnie, armies were no longer "safe" at 100-150 yards, and well witnin range of an average marksman, much less a skilled/trained one. Even cannoneers became endangered from sharpshooter fire, which could rain down fire at extended ranges, apthoraclly 800-1100 yards.

The second serious development in rifles totally sidesteps the radical development of the minnie, and that is the breech loader as a shoulder/hand fired weapon. A bore diamter bullet could be placed INTO the bore along with the charge, and with better metalurgy, it could both initialy launch the bullet at the same pressures (aka trapdoor conversions) it could then grow into a higher pressure limit, therefore longer ranged OR a heavier bullet (see cuba for 45/70 vs 7 mauser)

this was NOT a new invention, as 15th century europe was using a breechloading cannon, of approx 2" bore, that one placed the ball into an over bore chamber, then a parcel of powder, and then a solid based behind. the reason the bore was limited was due both to metalurgy (too weak) and sealing of the breech (not very good.. can you say say cutting?)

you are pretty much into minor inventions until you hit the pinfires and then the french turnbolt metal cartrige, which predates any of mauser's designs.

it would be interesting to note the time frame of use of the english brown bess (i THINK approaching 150 years of active service) andnthe overall time line of shoulder fired firearms (configurations recognized as rifles) and compare that to say the g12, and the time line between the first useful case breechloaders.

jeffe

Good stuff, guys, thanks. I KNEW this was the right place to come for information.



Where I want to go with this, and it'll be hard not to go off on several, several tangents, is to just differentiate the changes in weapons that rifling alone made.



Somewhere along the way in my life, I seem to recall reading or seeing on the tube something about the Germans (?) coming up with rifling as a way to deal with fouling... that is, as a "place" (grooves) for the fouling to go so guns could fire longer (in terms of time, not distance). In looking for this reference, now that I need it, I can't find it.



What is the consensus among you folks? That "rifling" was "co-invented" around the planet by different people at different times, or that someONE came up with the idea and it was mass-copied and improved through time? So far, I'm leaning toward the former, but it'll be a pain to write up. Oh well.



I'm also going to take the tact that weapons have more often impacted tactics than vice versa. I've always believed technology has leapt by bounds and bounds while tactics have "crawled" over decades, even centuries, to make use of improved weapons. As I have studied in formal classes, this was a major problem in the Civil War in that old tactics were still being used between armies fighting with more lethal weapons. Rifles outshot artillery, and so on. Just to narrow it down, though, I'd really like to stay on rifling, because "I" think THIS is the most important development during the (assigned) timeframe with which I have to work. Previously, armies had to line up shoulder-to-shoulder (talk about guts!), when shooting at the other guys, because the rounds went every which way -- so a volley of fire was the only way to go. Rifling, however, making bullets fly more accurately, negated the S-2-S tactics... but the old ways always die hard so, in the civil war, you had some guys with rifled bores shooting at other guys with rifled bores (I know, smoothbores were used a lot in the beginning and for the duration, though I don't know the numbers offhand), and this tactic (S-2-S) was just suicidal. This is where I want to go with my paper, that "rifling" as an invention/development was THE (we had to pick "THE") single thing that made the most impact on warfighting during the assigned timeframe. (I can't remember the years, but the Civil War is in it and, I feel, a good showcase for making my point.)



Another thing I'll want to nail down is... whether rifling was INITIALLY done to deal with fouling, and "accuracy" was accidentally discovered, or if accuracy alone was the driving reason for inventing rifling.



And you know, who got the idea to do spirals??? I think this was part of what I'd read or seen, a long time ago, about rifling being invented to deal with fouling.



(Sure beats the usual PF vs. CF arguments, doesn't it?)



Thanks, all.



Russ

The "rifled barrel" is the work of the Devil, an evil sprit rides the Diabolic Projectile, guiding it to it's target!
For the good of your immortal soul stay away from these Demonic Weapons.

Russell,

1. Scloppetaria; or Considerations on the Nature and Use of Rifled Barrel Guns, with reference to their forming the basis of a permanent system of national defence, agreeable to the genius of the country.By A Corporal of Riflemen, London, 1808.

Contemporaneous account to our Revoultionary War and the Napoleanic Wars written by Capt Henry Beaufroy.

Reprinted by The Richmond Publishing Company LTD, Surrey 1971

2. The Gun and its Development, WW Greener, 9th Edition, 1910.

reprinted by Bonanza Books, ISBN 0-517-084201

3. The Battles that Changed History, Fletcher Pratt, 1956.

reprinted 2000 by Dover, ISBN 0-486-41129

Preprinted by The Richmond Publishing Co. LTD, 1971

I think you can get all of them via inter-library loan.

jim

Jim Carmichel's 'Book of the Rifle' has a chapter on rifling that provides a decent overview.

Firstly, best of luck on your endeavor! Secondly, I think you are on the right track with the civil war perspective. The lag of tactics behind technology certainly is responsible for the horrific casualties of that event. I cannot find the references amidst the carnage of my own personal library on short notice(tech. ahead of tactics again), but I will peruse. My understanding is that the origins of rifling were indeed an effort to deal with fouling, and in fact had no twist. As to who developed the concept, and who decided to twist rifling, I believe that is lost on us.

In your boots I would begin my quest by contacting the NRA for references to historical sources, or perhaps the museum in Cody, WY., I believe it is called the Buffalo Bill Historical Museum, but that may not be correct. There are a couple of fellows there that know more about the history of guns than any person that I've heard of in this life.

There is a fellow named G. Ned Ludd that frequents the Small Game forum that deals with black powder WMD that may be able to help out. Try an email to him, or a PM. Also, do a search on Whitworth Rifles. One of the first products of scientific research on the subject of long range accuracy.

You may well be correct in your belief regarding it being the most significant of all developements in warfare. On the other hand, I was always partial to Igor for inventing the helicopter, and wished the minigun had come in a smooth bore version, chambered in 3" 12 Ga.

Again, best of luck!

.

There is a pretty decent short history of technical advances in the Lyman manual... doesn't connect with war tactics, but might be a useful, and easy source.

Might I suggest "Roundshot and Rammers" by Peterson, "The Rifled Musket" by Fuller and "Civil War Guns" by Edwards. Some of the tactics can by counterpoised by "Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821" by Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain.

If you can't find any of these localy, I can loan them to you.

Rifling of cannon had an impact also. It seems the benefit of rifling was well understood before the metallurgy of canon making was improved enough to utilize it. Elongated projectiles from rifled artillery had improved accuracy and impact, paralleling the improvements from musketry to riflery. As a start see:The Civil War Artillery Page