A thought on muskets and "assault weapons"

[Caliper_Mi]

All this talk in other places about "The Founding Fathers only intended the 2A to apply to muskets" has had me thinking recently... While the colonists primarily used muskets against the British, we often hear the misconception that they did so because rifling did not exist in the 1770's, but that is false. Gunsmiths had been rifling barrels for about 200 years at that time. Hunters commonly used rifles in the American Colonies.

From Wikipedia:

"Barrel rifling was invented in Augsburg, Germany at the end of the fifteenth century.[5] In 1520 August Kotter, an armourer of Nuremberg, Germany improved upon this work. Though true rifling dates from the mid-16th century, it did not become commonplace until the nineteenth century."

So, why then did the colonists use muskets against the British? After all, we know that a smoothbore limits your accuracy and effective range.

Well, ask your muzzleloading friends how long it takes to reload a rifled muzzleloader (not with one of them fancy sabots, but a lead ball) and how long it takes to reload a smoothbore with the same lead ball? The rifled barrel requires much more force to push the ball down the bore as it relies on a tight fit for the ball to be spun by the rifling. Meanwhile, the smoothbore can use a looser fit for faster loading.

The truth is, hunters had been using rifles for a very long time because the benefits of rifling were well known and the hunter wanted to put meat on the table with as few shots as possible (just as today). Hunters didn't worry about the slower reloading because if you miss with that first shot, you've likely scared the game off anyways.

What of the musket then? Why did people even have them? It was designed with rapid loading in mind. The smooth bore sacrificed accuracy for faster reloading and quicker followups. Why would you need faster shooting? Where do you have multiple targets to hit that don't run away when you shoot at them? In battle of course. The truth is, the musket was a military weapon. Many militia also had cartridge boxes with preloaded paper cartridges to speed the reloading further. While their rate of fire is not impressive by todays standards, the musket and cartridge box were the "assault weapon" of the 1770's. They may seem quaint today, but the muskets owned by many of our forefathers were truly military style weapons.

So, just a thought. I know I'm preaching to the choir. Just consider it another piece of ammunition (haha) to use when discussing the 2A...

 

[BADUNAME37]

Excellent, thank you!

 

[Hypnogator]

They may seem quaint today, but the muskets owned by many of our forefathers were truly military style weapons.

Exactly. The "Assault Weapon" of the late 18th Century was the Brown Bess (or Charleville) Musket. It has most of the characteristics of the modern assault rifle -- fast-firing (compared to a patched ball in a rifle) accurate only at short to intermediate range, not well suited to hunting (although usable as such), fast to reload, designed to mow down humans as quickly as possible given the technological limits of the age. Moreover the smoothbore musket was often used with multiple projectiles (Buck and Ball Loads) to increase its effectiveness.

It is exactly the type of weapon our forefathers intended for us to "keep and bear" so that we, as a militia, would have parity with an invading army or an army raised by our own tyrannical government.

The Brown Bess to M-16 is less of a technological change than the printing press to the TV broadcast, yet those who would scream like wounded panthers at the thought of government censorship of radio and TV broadcasts would deny us the right to own true (select-fire) assault rifles under the theory that they weren't available at the time the 2nd Amendment was written.

We may well be stuck with the requirement for licensure for concealed carry (albeit shall-issue) due to early 19th Century views about concealed weapons as evil, but oft-quoted militia clause of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that "assault weapons" are the class of weapons most protected by the core of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[230RN]

Excellent points, all! I'll have to remember those.

 

[Ky Larry]

The command and control methods of the day were much more limited than today. Now, with our communications, we can control thousands of soldiers but up until WW II, direct control was limited to what a soldier could hear or see, i.e. flags, pennants,drums,bugles,flares,and vocal commands.Therefore, mass, dense units firing in volley were employed. Under attack, defending soldiers with rifles were limited to 1 or 2 shots before the attackers closed to bayonet range where the issue was usually settled with cold steel. With muskets, you could get off 4-5 shots before the attackers got close enough to stab you. If you've ever examined a combat rifle of the day,such as a British Brown Bess, you'll see they were designed to be equal parts spear, firearm, and club.

 

[Ky Larry]

The command and control methods of the day were much more limited than today. Now, with our communications, we can control thousands of soldiers but up until WW II, direct control was limited to what a soldier could hear or see, i.e. flags, pennants,drums,bugles,flares,and vocal commands.Therefore, mass, dense units firing in volley were employed. Under attack, defending soldiers with rifles were limited to 1 or 2 shots before the attackers closed to bayonet range where the issue was usually settled with cold steel. With muskets, you could get off 4-5 shots before the attackers got close enough to stab you. If you've ever examined a combat rifle of the day,such as a British Brown Bess, you'll see they were designed to be equal parts spear, firearm, and club.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Rifles were also a lot harder to make and cost a lot more. So yeah, with the prevailing tactics of the day (massed infantry formations firing at close range followed by a bayonet forward advance) the musket was a better military weapon. However, the Americans also used muskets because they had more of them, and that is what the French were sending over as well.

The British experimented with rifle units during the Revolution as well, but did not hold much faith in them. Patrick Ferguson, inventor of the breech loading Ferguson rifle is said to have refrained from taking a shot at Washington at the Battle of Brandywine (it is an often told story, but how could anyone confirm that it was true??). Ferguson's rifle unit was disbanded after Brandywine. Ferguson was later killed at the Battle of Kings Mountain in North Carolina

 

[fatcat4620]

Wouldn't smooth bore be cheaper and to produce for a large army.

 

[AlexanderA]

The "buck and ball" loading, the quick reloading using paper cartridges in a smooth bore, and the massed volley fire meant that the object was to throw as much lead at the enemy, as quickly as possible. In this sense, the militia musket of the 18th century was like the "assault rifle" today.

 

[buck460XVR]

I always assumed the reason the colonists primarily used muskets, is because that's what the majority of them owned. I also assumed that is one reason the founding fathers created the 2nd Amendment, because it was home owned firearms that won our freedom from tyranny.

 

[the iron horse]

Excellent post BluEyes!

 

[paramedic70002]

It's funny I just made this an hour ago, then I see this post.

 

[Quiet]

In a letter to the CA legislature concerning an anti-gun bill (SB249), Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff says AR15 type rifles are the "modern American musket" and is used in legitimate self-defense & sporting (hunting & competition) roles.

 

[SaxonPig]

Yes, the faster loading musket was the assault rifle of the 18th century.

People who try to say that modern guns are not protected by the 2A because they didn't exist when the Constitution was written are, as usual, liars or stupid. Movies and radio also didn't exist back then yet these are protected by the 1A.