[David Evans]

From my own reading of actions during the 1640's in England I think I know why muskets have such a poor reputation for accurracy. I'll agree with Mr.Hand that 50 yards is a surefire hit, at 100 yards I average 4 out of 5 on a man sized target, which isn't bad.

However, it does seem that the tendancy, certainly in Britain, was to open fire at quite ludicrous ranges. One example I can think of is an action in Lincolnshire in 1643 where a body of Horse under one of Cromwell's Troop Commanders attacked a party of royalist musket, from sighting to charging to making contact the royalist musket fired at least three times. Sadly no description of the method by which the musket fired is given, but allowing for the speed of moving Horse in a controlled Charge, Trot, Canter, and possible gallop in the last few minutes then that implies that the musket started firing at well over a 100 yards. I'm sure someone else can give an idea of how much ground a Horse can cover at each pace. If the musket were firing by ranks I'd suggest about 30 seconds at the quickest to change ranks, by volley, then at least 20 seconds just to reload, and about a minute to form ranks into a volley formation.

[Elling Polden]

An article featuring our feathered friends, the Polish Hussars, proud chargers of pike, bow and musket alike.
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

[Chad Arnow]

Folks,
Let's make sure our posts don't continue with the sarcasm and condescension that's starting to creep in here.

Thank you.

[Randall Moffett]

Steven,

Not contradicting you on the ease of learning to use a musket or abilities of some muskets and musketmen. I think that is right on and it is much easier than the bow. I do think you need to hang out in better circles of archers though I know some archers that are pretty good marksmen inside a hundred yards. Some of the gents can distance shoot hundreds of yards out. I think semi-professional archers could have much better accuracy agaisnt earlier muskets but this certainly shifts with the longer barreled ones, though so does the weight. Not sure what type of muskets your friends use though to compare but most people I know who do black powder shooting use 18th and 19th century models. I think if you are comparing professional archers from the same time period musketmen the accuracy is somewhat different.

By the way the same bishop mentions they were well shielded as well so not just armour there. Another accont mentions they are in the best german harnesses that can be bought so these men were in the best of the best. I'd think in almost any period the best armour would be hard to pierce with arrows... and to some extent certain firearms.


RPM

[Jesse Pointen]

Yes please keep out the sarcasim.. i dont mean to destroy a Fact i am just opening a place to mix our idea's on what we would have preferd using, also we are determing either the musket or bow and witch one being the most affective.


Now earlier i mentioned a 22 round can be cuaght in you hand, well obvisualy you cannot.. all gun's are made for one reason (killing or cuasing mass damage) now i was inplying that a 22 caliber is one of the closest in firepower too the Flintlock musket...


Thank you.


Also id love to add the most Bow's back in the med age were mage of oak... making them Stronge but inafecting in power...


The term for rain of arrow's is used Becuase when 1000+ arrow's are being hurled into the sky they tend to drop down like bullet's...

I belive in my own apinion the the bow is alway's going to be one of the GREATEST weapon's in our history.
Reason's:
1. Silent.
2. affective for close range and close range.
3. Fire rate is Very afficiant.
4. Cost less and took less Resource's then a musket.
5. Damn Thing Sting like hell and cant be removed in battle making them a killer way of killing the target.


Musket's i love there a work of art but compared to the Bow they got little to live up for.


Thank you again for reading and have a pleasant day.

[Jesse Pointen]

Ok so there is a little detail we need to Focus on The issue of me not Informing on what musket's im talking about... here are some pic's of the Model Firearms im talking about.
This is a Modern made Flintlock musket pistol.. One of my Favorite model's




Thank you..

Also if anyone else has any pic's or story's of a Custom homemade musket please Post pics or post your story.

[Caleb Hallgren]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Randall Moffett]

I just do not want to get shot.....

With either of these weapons their times are very important in their effect on warfare. If you were saying that in its time the longbow was a great weapon, I'd agree 100%. It really changed things in many respects. The musket would do the same at a later date.

I think the weapon you are linked to there is a pistol. I think this is what most people are thinking of as a musket-

http://www.militaryheritage.com/loading1777frenchmusket.htm

I have done some limited black powder shooting. Know some of those guys who dress like mountain men and blow holes in animals.... I mean target animals. It is a fun experience but I enjoy the bow more still but it may be I do not enjoy the loud noise, though it still is alot of fun.



RPM

[Darryl Aoki]

Originally, I wasn't going to respond, since other folks had already touched on the salient points I had wanted to make, but here are some of the reasons I'd say that a musket's superior to a bow, at least in terms of battlefield use.

1. A bow would indeed have a higher rate of fire than a musket, and, in a one-on-one target-shooting match, an archer would probably be able to outperform a musketman. However, making a good archer takes a lot of training, while it would take much less time to train a musketman to a similar level of accuracy. At an army-level, musketmen are simply easier to field, provision, and replace.
2. Regarding the provisioning, issuing shot (or lead with which to make shot) and powder is much easier than making arrows. As an example, I generally pay about $80 US for a dozen wooden arrows, which is quite a bit more than I'd expect to pay for ammunition for, say, a .30 rifle. Granted, the arrows are reusable and don't have the cost benefits of economy of scale, but still...
3. Firearms can generally be kept loaded (for short to middling periods) without affecting them all that much. (Excluding issues such as powder quality, weather, and safety.) It's difficult to keep a bow drawn for more than a second or so, at least without losing accuracy. (Excluding modern compound bows, which wouldn't have been around in the 1500s at any rate.)

I've shot both firearms (unfortunately, no muzzle-loaders) and bows, and will concede that I generally enjoy shooting my bow more, but that isn't for any reasons of effectiveness. If I had to face down someone with a ranged weapon, and had my choice of a Brown Bess musket or a longbow, I'd probably go for the Brown Bess.

[James R]

[Lin Robinson]

I was preparing a lengthy post for this thread concerning the external ballistics of musket balls versus arrows, etc. However, I don’t think I will do that now.

This whole thread is very much like it must have been in the days of Cro-Magnon man when Og and his buddies gathered to discuss the relative merits of the atlatl versus the hand-thrown rock. Aside from the fact that both are projectile weapons, there is no real similarity.

Most weapons systems do not spring forth fully perfected and ready to supplant everything that has gone before. That has certainly been true for firearms. The first use of the handgonne in the 14th c. did not result in the immediate abandonment of swords, lances, spears or bows. The firearm, throughout its early history, co-existed with bows. We know from the wreck of the Mary Rose, that both guns and bows were in use in 1545. In the Highlands of Scotland bows were carried as late as the mid-17th c., occasionally in tandem with firearms. However, as technology improved the firearm began to outpace the bow in terms of firepower, which is what it was all about.

As has been alluded to here, years of training as well as some significant strength and co-ordination were required to be a proficient archer. A musketeer, on the other hand, could be trained in a week or so to load, fire and care for his weapon. I believe that in the very earliest days of matchlock use the musketeer was taught to aim his firearm. At that point firearms continued to be outnumbered on the field and mass-firing was not as effective as it would become when all soldiers carried guns, making it necessary to aim. As technology began to allow for higher production rates of firearms the doctrine of mass-firing could be used to better effect. At that point the common soldier was taught to load and fire his musket on command, keeping the barrel pointed in the general direction of the enemy. More muskets, more lead in the air, a better chance of hitting somebody on the other side and aiming the firearm was no longer an issue. By the time of the paper cartridge the requirements for a soldier included the need for a couple of opposing teeth, but beyond that almost anyone who was among the quick could wield a musket. And, by that time, the bow was gone as a military weapon, except among aboriginal peoples. Speaking of aboriginals, and specifically Native Americans, they have always been very quick to put firearms to use when they could obtain them. Even primitive (relatively) people can see the advantage of an advanced weapon system.

Jesse has clearly either developed some ideas on his own that are erroneous, or he has been given information that is erroneous. I do not think that any of his comments come from hands on experience. I do think that most persons posting here have tried to give him the correct information, but it appears that Jesse wants to cling to the ideas he already has. If that is the case, then I suggest that we move on to another topic. This one is exhausted.

[Robin Smith]

[Dan Howard]

He can believe anything he wants so long as he doesn't post on a reputable forum where others go to learn. If he does so then erroneous statements need to be refuted. If someone reads an unchallenged statement then one is more likely to think that it is true. I have no problem with honest questions or even heated discussion but simply ignoring these posts is not a good idea.

[Lin Robinson]

[Dan Howard]

I agree. My point was aimed at new threads not this one, which has been addressed adequately.

[Thomas Watt]

To add a couple of points (in my usual oblique and slightly off-the-mark style), a couple of things about muzzle-loaders in battle stand out that work as a disadvantage (not my opinion, but available from military history readings):
- troops that were not seasoned/battle-hardened would sometimes become rattled under the stress of battle and go through the process of loading, and then load again, and then again, all without remembering to fire until at last when the weapon was discharged, the result was a disaster. This is from after-action reports from the U.S. Civil War.
By comparison, no archer could have a similar issue.
- a large percentage of troops (as many as 50% in some wars) simply never fired at all, even during the heat of battle. Not until the advent of the M16 rifle did the U.S. Army get most of its troops to fire during combat. U.S. Army sourcing
I'm not sure whether or not archers ever faced the same issue.

Just wanted to share those 2 little tidbits, hoping that adds to the discussion.

[Lin Robinson]

[Thomas Watt]

[Elling Polden]

Part of why you put musket troops in lines is to make them all fire. They might not AIM while they do so, but they will, most of the time, fire.
As for archers, aiming is even harder. Since arrows have much less velocity, calulating range is essential. With a firearm, a shot against center mass will still hit even at range. An archer has to calulate range a lot more carefully, as well as lead the target more if it is moving.
Under such condition, just pointing and firing at random is as plausible for archers as for musketeer, probably even more, and the unaimed shots would be even more of target.
It is a result of psychology, not the weapon used.

Another important difference is that muskets where a close support weapon. Since missle weapons where attatched to pike units anyhow, the muskets would march up with the pike, and fire at close range.
As such, they where not in the same class of weapon as the bow or crossbow, who would (As far as i know) serve as long range artillery to soften up the foe.