.22LR -vs- Revolutionary Musket - Which is better choice for war?

[Andy54Hawken]

considering just the introduction of lands and grooves singlehandedly ditched the musket ,

Not true...
The Smoothbore musket lasted for centuries...right up until our "Civil War"...and even then many units fielded a smoothbore musket till the end.

In the 17th - early 19th century rifles and rifleman were a specialty and a expensive one at that.
They were used , and were around , but the main Infantry weapon was the Musket and Bayonet.
Andy

 

[oli700]

Not true...
The Smoothbore musket lasted for centuries...right up until our "Civil War"...and even then many units fielded a smoothbore musket till the end.

In the 17th - early 19th century rifles and rifleman were a specialty and a expensive one at that.
They were used , and were around , but the main Infantry weapon was the Musket and Bayonet.
Andy

how long it last is moot, it was the reason muskets faded

 

[oli700]

I have a civil war smooth bore carried by my family , L.Pomeroy.

People used them for a long time

 

[P7M13]

Repeating arms were out there then...even breech loaders...The Ferguson Rifle comes to mind here , which was used at the Battle of King's Mountain , in October of 1780...
Many of the designs of the period were far more expensive to make and in some cases , better suited as "range toys" as opposed to field use.

Webster has this to say about the word "Arms" :
"Weapons and ammunition , armaments."
Just food for thought...
Andy

OK Andy, what I mean is brass cased, centerfire, rifled barrel, mass produced with interchangeable parts. I believe those wouldn't come for another 50-75 years. With that, I'm talking about an accelerated industrial revolution.
Many of the technological advances we see and use are the result of ingenuity from needs presented in wartime: medicine, electronics, aeronautics and communications.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

how long it last is moot, it was the reason muskets faded

Again no,..
As you said "Considering just the introduction of rifling and grooves singehandedly ditched the musket"
Rifling has been around since at least the mid 1550's....lots of muskets in use , way after that...so rifles and rifling did not ditch the musket at its introduction...
Andy

 

[Member 52301]

I would pick a 22lr rifle. Bolt action - 1 or a lever action rifle - 2 and I would not pick a semi automatic rifle.

CZ 455 Lux - Discontinued 2018 - CZ-USA

The extra magazines that I have now are already loaded for this rifle.

I might take over the CZ Training rifle, if need be, that belongs to my husband even though he says it can be mine if I want it.

CZ 455 Training Rifle - Discontinued 2018 - CZ-USA

I use iron sights always - no scopes.

I would still stick with the 22lr bolt action rifles even though I still love lever action rifles. I would use what works for me IF the poop hits the fan.

Cate
PS: I love that old Johnny Horton song!

 

[oli700]

Again no,..
As you said "The introduction of rifling and grooves singehandedly ditched the musket"
Rifling has been around since at least the mid 1550's....lots of musket use way after that...so rifles and rifling did not ditch the musket at its introduction...
Andy

ok dude your right . I am wrong . Sorry I messed that all up

 

[oli700]

And I know the minie ball coupled with the rifling was what finally did it because it matched the firing rate of the smooth bore which was its only advantage . If you approve ?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

And I know the minie ball coupled with the rifling was what finally did it because it matched the firing rate of the smooth bore which was its only advantage . If you approve ?

No I don't "approve" or totally agree...
If you look at accounts and records of the Civil War...many units liked the Smooth Bore Musket , because of the ability to use a Buck and ball load.
Some other advantages include:
Being cheaper to make...
In some cases , troops being already familiar with the Smooth Bore musket , rather than the "newer" rifled muskets...
The availability of existing smooth bore muskets on hand , made arming units easier at times.

But I do agree that the Minie ball with rifling and the sights to use them effectively was devastating , which forced the ways and ideas of new tactics and did indeed , make Smooth Bore Muskets a "Second Line" weapon.

As a side note I do not need to agree with or " approve" anything you say , nor do I care for snarky azz comments.

I have been collecting , studying and shooting original ( antique ) muzzleloaders for over 20 years now , shooting them with 18th and 19th century style loading and shooting methods.
And while I have never claimed to be "right" or correct all the time ... I do have a wealth of experience to draw from.
Andy

 

[Open_Wire]

This thread is giving me an amused historian boner .

 

[Open_Wire]

No I don't "approve" or totally agree...
If you look at accounts and records of the Civil War...many units liked the Smooth Bore Musket , because of the ability to use a Buck and ball load.
Some other advantages include:
Being cheaper to make...
In some cases , troops being already familiar with the Smooth Bore musket , rather than the "newer" rifled muskets...
The availability of existing smooth bore muskets on hand , made arming units easier at times.

But I do agree that the Minie ball with rifling and the sights to use them effectively was devastating , which forced the ways and ideas of new tactics and did indeed , make Smooth Bore Muskets a "Second Line" weapon.

As a side note I do not need to agree with or " approve" anything you say , nor do I care for snarky azz comments.

I have been collecting , studying and shooting original ( antique ) muzzleloaders for over 20 years now , shooting them with 18th and 19th century style loading and shooting methods.
And while I have never claimed to be "right" or correct all the time ... I do have a wealth of experience to draw from.
Andy

And of course it turned out many engagements were within buck and ball range , and troops were not always well trained on the advantages of rifled muskets or the tactics thereof .

I believe civil war ballistics is finally coming into it's own , but I haven't looked much at it lately .

 

[RicInOR]

Maybe an aside, but given the current views, perhaps we ourselves may face this very question.

 

[Open_Wire]

OK Andy, what I mean is brass cased, centerfire, rifled barrel, mass produced with interchangeable parts. I believe those wouldn't come for another 50-75 years. With that, I'm talking about an accelerated industrial revolution.

Interchangeable parts muskets were achieved by the 1840's .By the 1850's, the Brits were coming over here to learn how we did it. Known as armory or American style of manufacturing , it wasn't part of an "accelerated " industrial revolution , just a regular one .

Brass cases came into their own near the dawn of the Civil War , and rapidly evolved into forms we know today

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Maybe an aside, but given the current views, perhaps we ourselves may face this very question.

Which among other things would be ironic.
Ironic because at the time period in which the OP link based its question / comparison...
One could be fined , if one showed up to Militia Muster with a sub-standard arm , a limited number of cartridges / powder & ball and no bayonet or tomahawk.

Most Militia Companies had a set of standards in regards to arms...As a very general rule , the musket had to be of roughly military caliber along with being able to take a bayonet* and again generally speaking having 60ish available cartridges or 60ish shots worth of powder and balls.
* A bayonet if it was a musket or tomahawk if you had a rifle , fowler or a fusil for duty...again was a broad general rule...

Nowadays some folks frown upon others who have a AR15 type rifle and "X" number of cartridges or capacity magazines...some things change , and not for the better in this case.
Andy

 

[Open_Wire]

One thing to consider when posing questions like those in link , in the OP is...

The way folks thought , their values and mindset was vastly different in the 17th , 18th and 19th centuries , than ours with a 20th and 21st century thought , value and mindset...

They may not be able to , or want to "wrap their head" around the idea of repeating rifle of the modern .22 type.

Please note that I am not against semi auto rifles or the ownership thereof...

I am just saying that we think and act differently now , then the people of say 1776...
And that comparing the two or to place a modern item or viewpoint on folks of that time period , can be misleading.
Andy

It is true that avoiding the fallacy of presentism is important, but human nature and intelligence remains the same. Our ancestors were no less intelligent than we were, and it wouldn't take a Revolutionary soldier or officer much longer to wrap their mind around a repeating rifle. Remember, even so-called "primitive" tribes were quick to take to and adapt superior technology when available, and their cultures and military tactics adapted to them.

How they would respond to a repeating .22 and make use of it is up in the air, as it is a comparison that enters the realm of the absurd and whoever posed the original question likely was playing with a number of tropes and fallacies that lead up to "what if we gave those primitive musket users a .22, their minds would be blown!"

I am quite certain that the concept would be quickly adopted and understood, and how it would have been received at a military level is beyond me. I don't think we'd see lines of Colonial troops blasting away at Redcoats with their 10/22's, but we might see some sort of weird version of a sharpshooter or DM making use of the rapid fire tech to engage targets at traditional musket ranges - which might be effective.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It is true that avoiding the fallacy of presentism is important, but human nature and intelligence remains the same. Our ancestors were no less intelligent than we were, and it wouldn't take a Revolutionary soldier or officer much longer to wrap their mind around a repeating rifle. Remember, even so-called "primitive" tribes were quick to take to and adapt superior technology when available, and their cultures and military tactics adapted to them.

How they would respond to a repeating .22 and make use of it is up in the air, as it is a comparison that enters the realm of the absurd and whoever posed the original question likely was playing with a number of tropes and fallacies that lead up to "what if we gave those primitive musket users a .22, their minds would be blown!"

I am quite certain that the concept would be quickly adopted and understood, and how it would have been received at a military level is beyond me. I don't think we'd see lines of Colonial troops blasting away at Redcoats with their 10/22's, but we might see some sort of weird version of a sharpshooter or DM making use of the rapid fire tech to engage targets at traditional musket ranges - which might be effective.

I never said that our ancestors were less intelligent that we are...I did say and still think that a modern .22 rifle would be too "alien" for them , to make use of.
By "alien" I mean too outlandish or within their framework of knowledge and comfort to use.
Andy

 

[Open_Wire]

I never said that our ancestors were less intelligent that we are...I did say and still think that a modern .22 rifle would be too "alien" for them , to make use of.
By "alien" I mean too outlandish or within their framework of knowledge and comfort to use.
Andy

I'd really have to disagree there. If Native Americans who had never seen a firearm could quickly make use of them, despite how alien they were, how much more so could men from a culture at the dawn of industrialization make use of an advanced version of technology they were already intimately familiar with?

Even the most alien tech gets quickly adapted by new users when they are exposed to it enough to understand how to use it, and a repeating rifle is very easy tech to use and understand, even if you don't go into the physics of it. Which, would be also easy to explain in a broad way to an 18th century American.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I'd really have to disagree there. If Native Americans who had never seen a firearm could quickly make use of them, despite how alien they were, how much more so could men from a culture at the dawn of industrialization make use of an advanced version of technology they were already intimately familiar with?

Even the most alien tech gets quickly adapted by new users when they are exposed to it enough to understand how to use it, and a repeating rifle is very easy tech to use and understand, even if you don't go into the physics of it. Which, would be also easy to explain in a broad way to an 18th century American.

While it is very true that various tribes quickly adopted the use of the rifle and Trade Gun...and some tribes even become well known as marksmen...many tribes as late as the Fight at Greasy Grass ( Little Big Horn ) 1876 made extensive use of the bow and arrow.

Also the rifles and Trade Guns of that era were made of metal and wood...items that the men of time were familiar with....If given a plastic stocked rifle with a scope , I still stand by my opinion that the men of the time would find that type of rifle to "alien"....Although I still think a wood stocked , iron sighted ,.22LR rifle would still be alien to them as well.
My mistake in not making myself more clear here...
Andy

 

[Open_Wire]

Lacking access to a sufficient supply chain to maintain rifles, let alone repeating rifles, I can see why tribes would make use of bows, especially when they were still effective at common engagement ranges.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The men of the 18th century were no fools. They lived in an age of progress and new discoveries. They were culturally primed to experience the new and amazing. The more educated among them were readily able to parse the unknown and understand it. A plastic stocked scoped rifle would be very alien, but there is nothing about it a semi competent person of the present day could not put into terms understandable in the 18th century, and I'd be hard pressed to imagine that such advances would be ignored or rejected for being too advanced.

Some people would cling to their muskets and old ways - that too is human nature, but others would quickly grasp the advantage of what was handed to them, and find ways to put it to good use in their world.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I am opting out of this thread as I am not making myself understood.
Andy