Range question

[Elena]

In early 1700s... when discussing about ship battles, which was the range of the ship guns? I mean, at what distance was the other ship to still be aimed true?

And speaking about rifles and blunderbusses... which was their target range to kill or to hurt?

Thank you very much for your answers, really needed and I don't know where to search, I tried to google but they said about caliber, which mean how big was the ball/. bullet, not how far around it killed!

[Swashbuckler 1700]

In early 1700s... when discussing about ship battles, which was the range of the ship guns? I mean, at what distance was the other ship to still be aimed true?

And speaking about rifles and blunderbusses... which was their target range to kill or to hurt?

Thank you very much for your answers, really needed and I don't know where to search, I tried to google but they said about caliber, which mean how big was the ball/. bullet, not how far around it killed!

This maybe not helpful at all but...

I dunno anout cannons

There were not much rifles in Gaop but musket yes.

Thsi is from wikipedia but it seems to be quite accurate information

" Musket calibers ranged from 0.5 inches (13 mm) to 0.8 inches (20 mm). A typical smooth bore musket firing at a single target was accurate Thurs only about 100 yards (91 m) to 150 yards (140 m) using the military ammunition of the day, Which used a much Smaller than the musket bullet bore Thurs Compensate for accumulation of ash in the barrel under battlefield conditions on."

about blunderbushes I would say same with pistols.....

[Elena]

Thank you for the muskets - I make no difference, in my understanding, musket was the French word for rifle what they called riflemen on British ships were mousquetaires on the French ones.

Does anybody know anything about cannon range?

[MajorChaos]

I can't find a specific source, but everything I can find tells me this:

Cannon range was dependent on type/size of cannon.

For example:

An 18 pound (cannon's were usually rated by the weight of the cannon ball they fired) long gun with a charge of 5lb of powder (from what I can find the charge was somewhere between a 1/4 or 1/3 of the shots weight) was capable of penetrating nearly 2 feet six inches into oak at a range of 400 yds. and over 1 foot at 1000 yds.

[Capt Thighbiter]

Cannons... a lot depends on the quality of the barrel and the true roundness of the ball. A badly honey combed bore or a round shot covered in rust and scale or just not round would prevent much accuracy. I know with our 1-3/4" cannon its difficult to hit a car at much past 200 yards. A real master gunner , with a good brass barreled cannon and carefully scaled round shot, I suppose 600 yds? If you want more cannon info go to Graybeard Outdoors boards and go to the cannon sub board. Those guys go to cannon shoots in Montana and stuff and fire all day , trying for real accuracy. Good reads too. True an 18 lb gun would throw a ball 1000 yds, but you better fire a lot of 'em if you wanted to hit anything, hence broadsides. SOMEONE would get lucky!

Edited April 26, 2012 by Capt Thighbiter

[Elena]

Thank you very much. So... I guess around 500 yards would do for our story? Not the highest not the lowest range...

Edited April 29, 2012 by Elena

[Cascabel]

You must always keep in mind the rocking of both your own ship and the target. The effective range of a weapon will not be the same as when on solid ground. A well aimed shot can completely miss the target when fired from a ship in motion. I would not attempt a shot beyond 100 yards with any expectation of a predictable result. The shot would carry much further, but the likelihood of a hit is greatly diminished. Of course, many shots, as in a broadside can increase the probability of hitting somewhere on the target.

>>>> Cascabel

[Elena]

Yes, it was a broadside, surely And thank you! Because one of my writing partners said that if it needed less than 300 meters for a musket and the same range for a cannon, then how were certain ships who escaped from boarding? (Well, she is a sergeant in the Army now, so maybe her opinion of distances is a little... permanently comparing to the present.) To me, I admit with shame that it didn;t occur to me to wonder about the range distance - for me writing "in the cannons' range" was enough. She wanted a specific strategy beyond the generalities written in the books (windward gauge vs the French leeward gauge, etc.), distances and other details,

[michaelsbagley]

Elena, I think you might be doing yourself and your writing a disservice by dismissing rifles and muskets as the same thing.

Rifles have grooves inside the barrel to put a spin on the shot to give better range and accuracy. 300 meters sounds like rifle range, not musket range.

Muskets had barrels with smooth insides, and hence much shorter range.

Rifles did not become common until after about the 1740s (they were exceptionally rare prior to that but existed going back to the 1660s (?)). Torsten Link's book "Flintlock" which can be found at many publishers clearance stores (think Half Price Books if you have one locally) and second hand book stores has some good information about the development of the rifle, and lots of good information about 17th and early 18th century muskets. You can usually find the book for under $10 in trade paperback.

[Elena]

Elena, I think you might be doing yourself and your writing a disservice by dismissing rifles and muskets as the same thing.

Rifles have grooves inside the barrel to put a spin on the shot to give better range and accuracy. 300 meters sounds like rifle range, not musket range. Muskets had barrels with smooth insides, and hence much shorter range. Rifles did not become common until after about the 1740s (they were exceptionally rare prior to that but existed going back to the 1660s (?)).

Thank you very much for clearing it up. I understand it now. Michael, my problem is first one of... understanding the fineries. I mean, I have read some things in English, but not being my mother tongue, I see no difference when there are subtle differences. Until recently I saw no difference between beautiful and handsome, for example, I said beautiful for a man too.

Torsten Link's book "Flintlock" which can be found at many publishers clearance stores (think Half Price Books if you have one locally) and second hand book stores has some good information about the development of the rifle, and lots of good information about 17th and early 18th century muskets. You can usually find the book for under $10 in trade paperback.

Yes, in US Here no chance... What's free available online, it's good...

[michaelsbagley]

Glad I was able to clear up that differenceI for you... I hadn't realized English wasn't your first language. Your posts always seem very well written! :)

You may wish to try amazon.com as they are international, and the book I mentioned is originally by a Swedish (?) author and likely available in many countries, and possibly a few different languages.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I am quite sure that some 16th C wheel locks had grooves inside the barrel (there were some German rifles) and C "Queen Anne pistols" had grooves inside the barrel as well. Still in gaop and even later muskets were much much much more popular.

[Dirigoboy]

I had generally been under the impression that the rifled musket was more a 19th century component, and was surprised to find that the Thomas Dotson Doglock musket was being produced in the mid-17th century http://www.nramuseum.com/the-museum/the-galleries/old-guns-in-a-new-world/case-7-the-snaphaunce,-the-doglock-the-miquelet/thomas-matson-doglock-musket.aspx

As to range and accuracy of ships cannon, others may speak effectively on it, but I found this lengthy piece on the Portuguese galleon Santissimo Sacramento, lost off Brazil in May of 1668 to be very informative and quite in-depth as to the ships cannon recovered, and the manufacture, which, I feel, would dovetail nicely in to the question of gunnery.

http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmartin.com/Santissimo.html

[Elena]

Thank you very much.

About Amazon... to hell with them! I had made last year special a card which can buy in euro and dollars on internet... just to notice that for Amazon and for FNAC (a French book delivery like Amazon) between Hungary and Russia it's nothing there.... Terra Incognita... I guess they need a Sailing master or a good cartographer to pass them a map and to explain them that we are in the European Union since 2007... So I canceled the damn card which was only getting administration fees and no use

[Fox]

If you want to talk about actual tactics rather than theoretical ranges, then a lot of accounts of combat involving pirate ships talks about broadsides being fired 'within pistol shot', that is to say, less than 50 metres or so.

[Quartermaster James]

Rifles did not become common until after about the 1740s (they were exceptionally rare prior to that but existed going back to the 1660s (?)).

FWIW: Rifling is known from the mid 15th century.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Rifles did not become common until after about the 1740s (they were exceptionally rare prior to that but existed going back to the 1660s (?)).

FWIW: Rifling is known from the mid 15th century.

I said that there were some rifles in 16th C and I was right. But they were more common in 18th C and later.

[Hawkyns]

If you are talking about the precursor to a boarding action, then it changes a bit. The shot a ships gun would be firing would be unlikely to be a solid ball. Chain shot- two smaller cannon balls with chain between them, or bar shot- two smaller cannon balls attachecd by a steel bar of varying length, would be the primary ammunition used, designed to take out the rigging of the enemy ship and to stop her sailing away or manoevering. Those types of shot tend to be a bit smaller than bore size so that they do not jam when fired. That makes them less powerful and therefore have less range and accuracy. Say, maybe 200 yards, max. Closer still and the guns would be firing cannister or case shot- thin wood or tin cans filled with musket balls or scrap metal designed to kill people on the deck without damaging the ship. Probably 100 yards or less.

Remember also that pirate ships, as a general rule, were smaller ships. The large ships were rarities, unlike what you see in the movies, so ships capable of carrying 18pounders or heavier would be extremely rare. 3 and 6 pounders, with some 12 pounders, would be your more standard armament, so the long ranges would not be common.

Hawkyns

Master Gunner

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Remember also that pirate ships, as a general rule, were smaller ships. The large ships were rarities, unlike what you see in the movies, so ships capable of carrying 18pounders or heavier would be extremely rare. 3 and 6 pounders, with some 12 pounders, would be your more standard armament, so the long ranges would not be common.

Hawkyns

Master Gunner

Indeed

Quite true but I have used to think that it is dangerous to make " genereal rules" about the pirates or their ships. Actually a quite many pirates had large or medium ships the small ones were a little more popular but that is not so simple.

[Hawkyns]

[

Quite true but I have used to think that it is dangerous to make " genereal rules" about the pirates or their ships. Actually a quite many pirates had large or medium ships the small ones were a little more popular but that is not so simple.

Even so, one of the largest ships, by all accounts, was Robert's ship, The Royal Fortune. A period description from one of her victims read " The said Roberts' ship.....has mounted 12 eight-pounders; 4 twelve-pounders; 12 six-pounders; 6 (bronze) eight-pounders, , and 8 four-pounders; and in her main and foremast has 7 guns, two and three pounders, and 2 swivel guns upon her mizzen."

A lot of guns, to be sure, but nothing particularly heavy. Only 4 12s, which would be the only things with anything that might be considered long range, and that only by being generous.

Hawkyns

Master Gunner

[Elena]

In my case, it's Navy vs pirates, and it won;t arrive to boarding. The pirates' pinnace tried to hide into the shallow channels, as they do, and the Navy, when they knew they can;t get further due to their draught, gunned the pinnace down.

[Jas. Hook]

Elena -

Just reading Battle At Sea, 3000 Years of Naval Warfare by R.G. Grant

Page 129, 1550-1830 Chapter, list an English Culverine Cannon (English Civil War Period)

18 pounder, 5.2 inch (13.2 cm) as having a range of 3280 yards (3000m.)

No other ranges were listed.

Jas. Hook

[Elena]

I love you all! <3

[Daniel]

Some further data:

"A 4-pdr., the typical gun size on a small sloop or schooner, could fire a roundshot about 1,000 yards." Angus Konstam, Pirates: 1660-1730, p. 11. I think that means, when you elevated the 4-pounder as high as it would go and fired it with a normal charge, a splash appeared about 1,000 yards away; I would not count on much penetration if you hit something at that distance.

"Case shot fired from a six-pound field piece had an effective range of 250 yards." Benerson LIttle, The Sea Rover's Practice, p.137. I think that means that an average gunner firing at crew on an open deck beyond 250 yards would more likely than not fail to disable anyone because of either a) dispersing the shot too widely to hit anyone, or b ) the shot losing too much energy to disable someone who was hit.

Little also agrees with Foxe; ships' guns were normally fired point blank, making maximum range unimportant.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Daniel

[MasterGunsmith]

Elena, I think you might be doing yourself and your writing a disservice by dismissing rifles and muskets as the same thing.

Rifles have grooves inside the barrel to put a spin on the shot to give better range and accuracy. 300 meters sounds like rifle range, not musket range. Muskets had barrels with smooth insides, and hence much shorter range. Rifles did not become common until after about the 1740s (they were exceptionally rare prior to that but existed going back to the 1660s (?)).

Thank you very much for clearing it up. I understand it now. Michael, my problem is first one of... understanding the fineries. I mean, I have read some things in English, but not being my mother tongue, I see no difference when there are subtle differences. Until recently I saw no difference between beautiful and handsome, for example, I said beautiful for a man too.

Torsten Link's book "Flintlock" which can be found at many publishers clearance stores (think Half Price Books if you have one locally) and second hand book stores has some good information about the development of the rifle, and lots of good information about 17th and early 18th century muskets. You can usually find the book for under $10 in trade paperback.

Yes, in US Here no chance... What's free available online, it's good...

The easiest way i've found to explain the differance of musket vs rifle accuracy/ range to compair the two with a football and baseball.

Although you can throw a baseball well it still has a tendancey to move up/down or side/side making it less accurate and shorter range. where as the football spins while it flies it has a more stable/predictabe tajectory as well as longer rang then a baceball.

The musket ball bounces around the walls of the bore of the musket, having the effect of the baseball.

The rifle has spiral grooves in the bore causing the tight fitting cloth wrapped ball to spin, just as the football does.

BTW, I am refering to American football not socer