Fact: Musketball wounds are worse than wounds suffered from modern day ballistics.
That's what I just said.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Fact: Musketball wounds are worse than wounds suffered from modern day ballistics.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Yes, but accuracy compared to modern weapons? All must be taken into account!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Fact: Musketball wounds are worse than wounds suffered from modern day ballistics.
why do you think there were so many amputations during the civil war?
if you get hit in the leg, that fucker is gone....say goodbye, cause even if its still hanging on, they wont be able to reattach it.
remember, on average, we are talking about a HALF INCH of lead leaving the barrel and hitting you.
if you get hit in the leg, that fucker is gone....say goodbye, cause even if its still hanging on, they wont be able to reattach it.
remember, on average, we are talking about a HALF INCH of lead leaving the barrel and hitting you.
the brown bess, which was the common rifle of the era was pretty damn accurate, considering.Zimmer wrote:
Yes, but accuracy compared to modern weapons? All must be taken into account!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Fact: Musketball wounds are worse than wounds suffered from modern day ballistics.
Rifles that were manufactured during the US Civil War were almost up to par with modern day rifles.
300 yard consistent shots....not from everyone, but from marksmen.Zimmer wrote:
Yes, but accuracy compared to modern weapons? All must be taken into account!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Fact: Musketball wounds are worse than wounds suffered from modern day ballistics.
edit: and that is from the 1790's.
Last edited by Parker (2008-03-18 14:25:40)
at a much slower velocity than todays weapons for that matter, which only makes the wounds worse.Parker wrote:
why do you think there were so many amputations during the civil war?
if you get hit in the leg, that fucker is gone....say goodbye, cause even if its still hanging on, they wont be able to reattach it.
remember, on average, we are talking about a HALF INCH of lead leaving the barrel and hitting you.
you looked into getting one anytime soon, or is that like me saying i want a single action army?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
at a much slower velocity than todays weapons for that matter, which only makes the wounds worse.Parker wrote:
why do you think there were so many amputations during the civil war?
if you get hit in the leg, that fucker is gone....say goodbye, cause even if its still hanging on, they wont be able to reattach it.
remember, on average, we are talking about a HALF INCH of lead leaving the barrel and hitting you.
just a far off dream......
Slower velocity = less energy wasted. Less piercing effect and more bludgeoning/tearing. Very messy.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
at a much slower velocity than todays weapons for that matter, which only makes the wounds worse.Parker wrote:
why do you think there were so many amputations during the civil war?
if you get hit in the leg, that fucker is gone....say goodbye, cause even if its still hanging on, they wont be able to reattach it.
remember, on average, we are talking about a HALF INCH of lead leaving the barrel and hitting you.
Yep, by the American Civil War rifles had effective ranges of 300 yards.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
If I dont get deployed. I went to a gun show a few months back and saw some for sale. Vintage Civil War Rifles. They were springfield knock offs when they were manufactured in the 1860's. $700.Parker wrote:
you looked into getting one anytime soon, or is that like me saying i want a single action army?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
at a much slower velocity than todays weapons for that matter, which only makes the wounds worse.Parker wrote:
why do you think there were so many amputations during the civil war?
if you get hit in the leg, that fucker is gone....say goodbye, cause even if its still hanging on, they wont be able to reattach it.
remember, on average, we are talking about a HALF INCH of lead leaving the barrel and hitting you.
just a far off dream......
Ive got bills I have to pay right now, but in the near future.
only thing is, I would not dare to fire em.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-18 14:31:09)
You also have to pay your X360 subscription, oh I went there
Col George Hanger, a British officer, became very interested in the American rifle after he witnessed his bugler's horse shot out from under him at a distance, which he measured several times himself, of "full 400 yards", and he learned all he could of the weapon. He writes:
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."
Quotations from M.L. Brown's, FIREARMS IN COLONIAL AMERICA
copy/paste
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."
Quotations from M.L. Brown's, FIREARMS IN COLONIAL AMERICA
copy/paste
Well personally I have never worn kevlar body armour on my face, not even low-grade. In any case, most combat won't be at point blank range,.. try hitting someone in the face with a (rifled) musket from a distance. I'm not questioning the effect of a musket ball on the human body, I'm just questioning the chance of one reaching the human body.LaidBackNinja wrote:
A musket ball to the face ends the game pretty quickly. Or to the arm, or to the leg. Those balls were fucking mean. People here underestimate muskets. By the independence war, they also used rifled muskets which had far better accuracy. A musket ball also tends to bounce around inside the body after impact. That shit will mess you up. Modern day rounds are far less lethal than musket balls were.Parker wrote:
sure it would.Lai wrote:
Hmmm,.. has anyone considered that a shot from a musket probably wouldn't even penetrate low-grade kevlar at point blank range?
see above post.Lai wrote:
Well personally I have never worn kevlar body armour on my face, not even low-grade. In any case, most combat won't be at point blank range,.. try hitting someone in the face with a (rifled) musket from a distance. I'm not questioning the effect of a musket ball on the human body, I'm just questioning the chance of one reaching the human body.LaidBackNinja wrote:
A musket ball to the face ends the game pretty quickly. Or to the arm, or to the leg. Those balls were fucking mean. People here underestimate muskets. By the independence war, they also used rifled muskets which had far better accuracy. A musket ball also tends to bounce around inside the body after impact. That shit will mess you up. Modern day rounds are far less lethal than musket balls were.Parker wrote:
sure it would.
Not really. Modern rounds go about three times as fast and weigh half as much. The modern rifle will be effective at a range much, much longer than its 150 year old counter part. The low speed of old rounds also keeps them from penetrating modern body armor. An Intercepter Vest will easily stop one of those things.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the brown bess, which was the common rifle of the era was pretty damn accurate, considering.Zimmer wrote:
Yes, but accuracy compared to modern weapons? All must be taken into account!GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Fact: Musketball wounds are worse than wounds suffered from modern day ballistics.
Rifles that were manufactured during the US Civil War were almost up to par with modern day rifles.
slower rounds = worse wounds
what he saidLaidBackNinja wrote:
Slower velocity = less energy wasted. Less piercing effect and more bludgeoning/tearing. Very messy.
Yep, by the American Civil War rifles had effective ranges of 300 yards.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-03-18 14:46:06)
a vest might be able to stop the round from entering, but stop it from caving in your torso?DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Not really. Modern rounds go about three times as fast and weigh half as much. The modern rifle will be effective at a range much, much longer than its 150 year old counter part. The low speed of old rounds also keeps them from penetrating modern body armor. An Intercepter Vest will easily stop one of those things.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
the brown bess, which was the common rifle of the era was pretty damn accurate, considering.Zimmer wrote:
Yes, but accuracy compared to modern weapons? All must be taken into account!
Rifles that were manufactured during the US Civil War were almost up to par with modern day rifles.
no.
With a flint/percussion/wheel musket? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. The marksman can be as good as they get, there are just limitations set by the weapon. No scope, not even proper iron sights,.. I don't think it would be possible even with a rifled barrel; the ball is just to slow.Parker wrote:
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."
how many black powder rifles have you shot?Lai wrote:
With a flint/percussion/wheel musket? Sorry, but I'm not buying that. The marksman can be as good as they get, there are just limitations set by the weapon. No scope, not even proper iron sights,.. I don't think it would be possible even with a rifled barrel; the ball is just to slow.Parker wrote:
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."
during the revolutionary war, flintlock was the way of the day. Wheel lock was from the century prior and percussion caps werent even invented yet. Also, the brown bess, the british standard weapon, was a smooth bore. The kentucky long rifle, wasnt.
also, by the time the civil war rolled around, the sharps rifle had an effective KNOWN range of 500 yards.
A couple of thousand of guys shooting at once almost guarantees at least one musket ball will hit you in the face.Lai wrote:
Well personally I have never worn kevlar body armour on my face, not even low-grade. In any case, most combat won't be at point blank range,.. try hitting someone in the face with a (rifled) musket from a distance. I'm not questioning the effect of a musket ball on the human body, I'm just questioning the chance of one reaching the human body.LaidBackNinja wrote:
A musket ball to the face ends the game pretty quickly. Or to the arm, or to the leg. Those balls were fucking mean. People here underestimate muskets. By the independence war, they also used rifled muskets which had far better accuracy. A musket ball also tends to bounce around inside the body after impact. That shit will mess you up. Modern day rounds are far less lethal than musket balls were.Parker wrote:
sure it would.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
One thing I always wonder is, I wonder what Urban warfare was like back then. Even in WW1 they rarely discuss Urban Warfare, they still talk about "seiges"
As someone stated, its 2300:1 ,maybe less i can't give a fuck lol..
To make it more easy for some people....
Who would win if you got a weapon of choice in bf2, and the whole server are going to knife you (63 people)
this is a 63:1 ratio what do you think happens when the ratio is 2300:1, or 120:1 (multiple ratio's FTL)
To make it more easy for some people....
Who would win if you got a weapon of choice in bf2, and the whole server are going to knife you (63 people)
this is a 63:1 ratio what do you think happens when the ratio is 2300:1, or 120:1 (multiple ratio's FTL)
urban areas were avoided for the most part. thats not friendly to stand-point-shoot-die type of warfareMek-Izzle wrote:
One thing I always wonder is, I wonder what Urban warfare was like back then. Even in WW1 they rarely discuss Urban Warfare, they still talk about "seiges"