I just went to an anti-gun-control lecture where the speaker noted, among other things, that almost every house in colonial American in the 1700s had a musket, that the murder rate was much lower than it is today, and that very few of those murders were with guns.
Setting aside all the other problems you or I might see with that statement, I’d like to hear what Dopers have to think about the potential of a musket as a murder weapon. My thought was that of course people didn’t murder each other very often with muskets. I mean, think about it - the damn things take the better part of a minute to load, you only get one shot, and your accuracy at anything greater than point-blank range is going to be laughable. Ford forbid you get your powder wet, or the gun simply misfires. What in the world are you going to do - take your shot, and then hope your victim stands very, very still while you reload?
My thought is that muskets were decent enough weapons when fired in massive volleys, by armies trying to get as much lead in the air as possible. But as weapons of individual murder? Laughable.
That’s my thought, anyway. Gun Dopers, your thoughts?
(No, I’m not trying to murder anyone, with a musket or otherwise. I’m just nit-picking a lecture.)
I think a musket would make an excellent “crime of passion” weapon. It was there, always over the mantle, loaded and ready to use. Not a sniper weapon by any means, but who the hell shoots his victim from 500 yards away? If you were going to murder someone back then, a pistol would be a better bet, or a knife. But a musket would do just fine in a pinch.
The inaccuracy of the colonial era-musket is often vastly exaggerated as is the speed required to load and fire them. The best trained armies could put out a shot every 15 seconds in the 18th century, and the musket (depending on exact type) could be quite accurate from 70-80 yards (even up to a hundred.) Typically musketeers would be hitting targets 150-200 yards away, a range at which the musket was very inaccurate thus the use of massed volleys. But one-on-one, I wouldn’t want a musket pointed at me at say, 50 yards. That’s 150 feet, I’d imagine most murders today that happen from gunfire are at a much, much shorter range.
Furthermore, the second shot might take up to a minute for a slow reloader but the first shot doesn’t have to be loaded in the heat of battle, it can be preloaded.
The colonial-era musket certainly takes much longer to reload than a modern rifle (even single shot rifles used by hunters) and is indeed less accurate. But it was still not something you wanted a train musketeer shooting at you with at a range of under 150 feet, and realistically probably not under 210 feet.
Plus, I imagine that someone wanting to kill someone with a weapon in the 18th century would probably prefer using a pistol (pistols were frequently used in duels, for example.)
I don’t find any real problem with the statement itself, either. America almost certainly had a lower murder rate in the 18th century as well as probably a higher rate of gun ownership (though probably a much lower rate of guns per person, as we now have less gun owners but more who own multiple weapons) but it’s a statement without value.
America also didn’t have cramped cities full of disaffected youths, compared to now. It didn’t have a host of other social issues that affect America today (like the massive amount of gangs and organized crime and drug trafficking in which people kill one another to eliminate competitors.)
I won’t get into the gun control aspects as I don’t think a single person has ever changed their mind about gun control in recorded history.
Anyway, it seems to me there would be less of the crimes of passion that you might see with a handgun. The difference in time required to get the weapon, load it, and shoot it might make a difference in either the shooter cooling down and/or the target getting away.
But the reason for the post is this question: is it possible to forensically identify which musket fired which ball in the same manner as modern ballistics can match gun to bullet?
No cite handy, but my understanding is that the rate of gun ownership in colonial America was far lower than generally portrayed. Guns were very expensive, and not needed by folks in cities and other large portions of the colonies.
I’ve often heard the number of 4-6 shots per minute for a well trained soldier - tho a farmer would be far slower than that.
My kid does rev war re-enactment and owns/shoots a brown bess. He can achieve decent accuracy at relatively close ranges - I’d guess he could probably hit a man 9 out of 10 times at 50’. And with the ball being around 60 caliber, it would make a significant impression wherever it happened to strike you. The issue of range comes into play on the battlefield, when you need to calculate how quickly your opponent can cover a given distance compared to how long it takes you to reload.
And yes, my understanding of military tactics of the time was that individual soldiers generally did not seek out specific targets, but instead, fired at massed troops.
One thing I don’t know is whether the proverbial gun over the fireplace would be kept loaded.
My guess would be “not”. One concern would be that if the thing wasn’t fired regularly, the powder in the barrel would get damp over time by condensation. In any event, you probably wouldn’t want to keep it primed (that is, with a pinch of powder in the pan) for fear of accidental discharge from sparks, candles and the like, even with a pan-cover.
As for the question in the OP - the problems with using a musket as a murder weapon would not be the range, accuracy or slow reload time so much as the fact that a musket is both noisy and large/difficult to conceal – same reason as why murders with a shotgun are less common than murders with pistols these days.
That was my assumption as well, but my son is our family’s weapons/demolitions expert.
I know he spends an inordinate amout of time cleaning his musket every time he uses it.
Hell, yes it was kept loaded. Ask any docent of a colonial twon recreation. They are always finding musket balls lodged in the interior walls of houses where people tried to use the musket flint to strike a fire in the fireplace, forgetting the weapon was loaded. What good is a self-defense weapon when it takes you several minutes to ready it to fire?
Dinsdale, your figures are heavily under dispute. I’ll see if I can find the cites, but the study you cited from memory is deeply flawed and shows tremendous bias. IIRC, it cost the author his teaching position.
You’re talking about how many folks owned guns? Okay, I’ll gladly acknowledge that I may have been remembering (or misremembering) a flawed study/report.
Why would it take “several minutes” to ready a musket to fire?
I apologize for citing from memory to a discredited source.
My brief review strongly suggests that Bellesiles was either sloppy or fraudulent with respect to some portions of his purported research. Essentially he purported to cite probate records that didn’t exist.
Another impression I’ve received is that at least some measure of the opposition to his book may have been politically motivated.
But I haven’t readily seen anything firmly establishing just how common gun ownership was in colonial America.
I find it hard to believe anyone would use a musket flintlock to attempt to start a fire. Just think of the geometry of the situation - bringing the lock into proximity with the fire in the fireplace would be awkward to say the least.
Moreover, if they did so, it would be hard to miss that the pan had powder in it.
Surely using a detatched flint and steel would be easier? And surely they would be pretty universally available, in a society where lighting fires and candles was a regular task?
In any event, even the most fumble-fingered farmer wouldn’t take “several minutes” to load a musket. I’ve loaded one myself once, it took around a minute doing it leasurely - and I’ve never practiced loading at all.
Basically - you pour powder down the barrel, add bullet and wadding, tamp it home, then put some powder in the pan, and you are ready. Allegedly, good infantry could fire three or even four shots a minute.
But the reason for the post is this question: is it possible to forensically identify which musket fired which ball in the same manner as modern ballistics can match gun to bullet?
Muskets are smoothbore weapons so the typical strations found on modern bullitts would not be present, So i would imagine that the usual tests would not work.
Modern science could still link the ball to the musket. Every batch of blackpowder is a little different from every other batch. Powder residue on the wadding, victim’s clothes, and shooter’s hands and clothes can be compared. There’s a lot of smoke and flash from both the muzzle and the pan, you see, and if we are talking about your typical murder it will be at close range. Blackpowder weapons virtually spew powder residues.
As the ball goes slamming around the inside of the bore on its way to the muzzle, it is going to leave smears of lead. Musket balls are typically very soft. Those smears of lead can be compared to the musket ball to see if the various impurities, alloying metals (if any), and isotopes are consistent with that ball having been fired from that musket. If any powder residue can be recovered from the ball, it can also be compared to powder residue from the musket.
Plus, then there’s other things like just getting fingerprints from the accused and checking the musket…
But OTOH, the lead is separate from the powder, unlike modern jacketed bullitts, so you could potentially fire the same bullitt five or six times in one gunfight!