|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 16, 2015 10:28:17 GMT
Ramrod and Cleaning rod suggestions, how lethal can they be?.... And yes, this has sort of been raised by the blank+cleaning rod in "Skippys list" thread. But this is involving live rounds in the chamber... Or a loaded rifle in the ram rod muzzle loading scenario. Its a well known myth from way back when Myths were pre history of the internet... I heard this back in the 70's . Loading an old muzzle loader, at times of stress, and battle, some soldiers forgot to take the ram rod out and fired the gun with it still in..... So would it. 1] Misfire spectacularly and explode the rifle. 2] be lethal at close range only as the ram rod just tumbles in the air and is wildly inaccurate. 3} the much believed myth, be more lethal at reasonable range and go through two or three objects like a high energy spear..... 4] and this is quite plausible, during loading, they tamp a little too hard, and the rifle fires prematurely, taking the soldiers hand with it, along with anything else over the dangerous end of the barrel... like your face if you are stupid enough to be looking down the thing whilst loading. My Money, probably on number two. And number Four. If the bullet doesnt jam on the rod and cause spectacular failure that is?... I have handled such weapons, and I am aware that you load them with care, and dont hammer the loading rod home too hard for fear of that igniting the "black powder". (Or modern equivalent of such..) Cleaning rods, this is also something akin to the accident whilst cleaning and being stupid and not proving the weapon before you clean... Can a cleaning rod on top of a live round cause damage in the same way as above.... The ones I have handled dont "Fit" the barrel as hard as a ram rod, so will allow escaping gasses to pass, its the inclusion of a piece of cloth or brush on the end that cleans the barrel, and the brush, its a sort of long bottle brush is the best description.  Thats one set of cleaning rods you can find on the search engines..... Because of the loose fit of the rod, I cant see how that would even be viable at medium range without tumbling wildly and inaccurately. So what does everyone else know?... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 16, 2015 14:46:40 GMT
I have only handled one muzzle loading weapon, and that was a revolver, on which the "ramrod" is fixed under the barrel, so doesn't function in the same manner as a single shot muzzle loader. the ones I have seen demonstrated had the ramrod a rather loose fit - as loose as a cleaning rod with the tip to hold the cloth, but no cloth.
so the options as I see them are:
the mass and inertia of the ramrod will cause chamber overpressure or it won't.
the mass of the rod will reduce the muzzle velocity or it won't.
the rod will fly true or it will tumble.
as far as the cleaning rod in a modern firearm: my rifle has had an occasional magazine malfunction that has slammed the tip of the bullet against the edge of the loading ramp hard enough to deform the tip of the bullet. this leads me to think that you could only directly cause an accidental firing with rimshot ammunition, simply because with centerfire, you are not going to be able to strike the primer against the firing pin by hitting the end of the bullet with the cleaning rod. this leaves, as the alternative, accidentally firing the gun while the cleaning rod is in the barrel. considering the number of times I have seen reports of a person accidentally shooting himself while cleaning his gun, this would seem to be plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 17, 2015 14:58:03 GMT
Got to love the Australians, who tested this. Admittedly this was with a Baker Rifle rather than a musket, the two use different ramrods, but it is clear that even with a double charge the gun isn't going to fail. Lethality wise the maximum range seems to be around 16 meters with a double charge, and I don't see any significant difference with Muskets. (Off the top of my head the maximum practical range for a musket was around 100 yards/meters, and around 300 yards/meters for a Baker Rifle.)
You would not ignite the powder by compacting it with the rod as I think that the ends were brass or wood (hence no spark). The most likely reason for a musket to discharge as it was being loaded would be embers remaining in the barrel or breach after firing. The nature of loading meant that even if this did happen the only part of your body that should be in front of the muzzle would be your hand.
Ramrods, like the shot itself, had a very loose fit in the barrel. This was by design, as the more you fired a blackpowder gun the more material built up in the barrel. By under-sizing the shot and rod more shots could be loaded and fired before the barrel needed to be cleaned.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 17, 2015 15:14:28 GMT
Got to love the Australians, who tested this. Admittedly this was with a Baker Rifle rather than a musket, the two use different ramrods, but it is clear that even with a double charge the gun isn't going to fail. Lethality wise the maximum range seems to be around 16 meters with a double charge, and I don't see any significant difference with Muskets. (Off the top of my head the maximum practical range for a musket was around 100 yards/meters, and around 300 yards/meters for a Baker Rifle.) You would not ignite the powder by compacting it with the rod as I think that the ends were brass or wood (hence no spark). The most likely reason for a musket to discharge as it was being loaded would be embers remaining in the barrel or breach after firing. The nature of loading meant that even if this did happen the only part of your body that should be in front of the muzzle would be your hand. Ramrods, like the shot itself, had a very loose fit in the barrel. This was by design, as the more you fired a blackpowder gun the more material built up in the barrel. By under-sizing the shot and rod more shots could be loaded and fired before the barrel needed to be cleaned. good find. I noted, they were using blank charges, which might make a difference. it looked like a paper cartridge, which would become a wad in loading. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 17, 2015 15:51:15 GMT
Loading of a Baker Rifle can be seen here; (Its the same people as the above clip). The loading technique used here would be the same for the Black Bess Musket, as both used the same paper cartridge, if a little easier due to the greater windage of a musket.
You'll notice that the ball isn't spat down the barrel, no matter what Bernard Cornwell might say in the Sharpe series of books and TV series. As has been noted by reenactors no one with any measure of sanity is going to put their lips anywhere near the hot end of a gun. Or their face in front of the muzzle for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 17, 2015 16:14:08 GMT
Loading of a Baker Rifle can be seen here; (Its the same people as the above clip). The loading technique used here would be the same for the Black Bess Musket, as both used the same paper cartridge, if a little easier due to the greater windage of a musket. You'll notice that the ball isn't spat down the barrel, no matter what Bernard Cornwell might say in the Sharpe series of books and TV series. As has been noted by reenactors no one with any measure of sanity is going to put their lips anywhere near the hot end of a gun. Or their face in front of the muzzle for that matter. don't know who bernard cornwell was or is, but he sounds a bit like a dipstick. the correct procedure for loading a paper cartridge was to bite off the end that DIDN'T have the ball or bullet, pour the powder into the barrel, and then stuff the remainder of the cartridge in with the ball on top. interestingly, this caused a problem with troops in india, because the cartridges were treated with animal fat for lubrication and waterproofing. the Hindu troops wouldn't bite it lest the fat be beef fat, and the muslims wouldn't bite it lest the fat be pig fat. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 17, 2015 16:47:08 GMT
Bernard Cornwell is an author who writes historical fiction. His most famous creation and series were/are the Sharpe series of books which were turned into a TV series staring Sean Bean. (This was in fact Sean Beans breakout role)
The series is heavily based on actual history, using real events and locations as the backdrop to Sharpes adventures of which he often plays some kind of role; For example he saves the life of the future Lord Wellington in one of the early books (which is why he went from an enlisted soldier to an officer, something that at the time was almost unheard of in the British Army). This took place during a battle in India where Wellingtons exact movements for a short period are unknown, and Wellington himself refused to talk about what happened.
Cornwell is fairly good at describing the 'big' stuff, such as the general overview of the battles and their importance (something that he usually explains at the end of the book along with providing maps and charts to help in picturing the battles). He's also quite good at describing things like the nature and structure of the British Army of the period, and why Sharpe was (usually) disliked by his fellow officers in this context.
He's not as good at plots and character (both of which are OK, but hardly ground breaking or all that interesting) and when it comes to actual combat he is more 'Hollywood' than Historical. (Men being thrown backwards when shot for example)
Patrick O'Brian is actually the better writer of the two, with better stories (even if they are 'thinner'), characters and ironically (given that combat is actually rare in the Master and Commander series of books, and then not really described in any real detail) more realistic in terms of the fight scenes.
The reenactment group in the clips is the 95th rifles, the same unit Sharpe is part of for most of the series. This was actually a real unit of the British army until the 1960's when it was merged with other units.
|
|
