Joshua M. Smith
Member
How do you feel history would have been affect if the Foster slug had been introduced when the smooth bore musket was in widespread use among the infantry?
The muskets in use by, say, the English were around the same bore diameter as a 12 gauge shotgun.
While a round ball shot from a military musket quickly veered off course, the Foster slug, rainbow-like trajectory notwithstanding, could hold an 8" (on the outside) group at 100 yards, giving it almost the accuracy of a rifle. Volley fire would not have been necessary to hit enemy targets, but rather, the individual soldier could have picked out his own target rather than relying on chance to do it for him.
Modern smooth bore slug guns can be effective on deer out to 200 yards with Foster slugs, though they are generally held to within 100 to 150 yards due to their trajectories.
Given that most modern battles (among infantry at least) are fought within 200 yards and our assault rifles are designed around this number, it would seem that the development of the rifle would have been affected in some way.
How do you view this? Do you believe the rifle would have remained a curiosity, or do you think it would have developed in the same manner regardless of an early Foster-type slug introduction? If you believe the development of the rifle would have been retarded, in what ways do you see the evolution of the individual weapon, both military and non-military, to have changed in this hypothetical scenario? On the other hand, if you believe we would be using rifled arms today, do you imagine there would be any fundamental differences between what we have now and what would have been had in the hypothetical time line?
I'm going somewhere with this... really.
Josh <><
The muskets in use by, say, the English were around the same bore diameter as a 12 gauge shotgun.
While a round ball shot from a military musket quickly veered off course, the Foster slug, rainbow-like trajectory notwithstanding, could hold an 8" (on the outside) group at 100 yards, giving it almost the accuracy of a rifle. Volley fire would not have been necessary to hit enemy targets, but rather, the individual soldier could have picked out his own target rather than relying on chance to do it for him.
Modern smooth bore slug guns can be effective on deer out to 200 yards with Foster slugs, though they are generally held to within 100 to 150 yards due to their trajectories.
Given that most modern battles (among infantry at least) are fought within 200 yards and our assault rifles are designed around this number, it would seem that the development of the rifle would have been affected in some way.
How do you view this? Do you believe the rifle would have remained a curiosity, or do you think it would have developed in the same manner regardless of an early Foster-type slug introduction? If you believe the development of the rifle would have been retarded, in what ways do you see the evolution of the individual weapon, both military and non-military, to have changed in this hypothetical scenario? On the other hand, if you believe we would be using rifled arms today, do you imagine there would be any fundamental differences between what we have now and what would have been had in the hypothetical time line?
I'm going somewhere with this... really.
Josh <><