Can someone tell me how muzzle loaders are superior to archers?

[datalink7]

100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Rastus

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
ask the native americans
\thread

| :thumbsup:

By that time we werent really using muzzle loaders. This is a good read about the weapons used at that time.

Heres a excerpt

"The guns were all tested for defective cartridges, endurance, accuracy, rapidity of fire, firing with excessive charges, and effects of dust and rust. The Springfield was the winner. The Model 1873 carried by the 7th Cavalry was a carbine that weighed 7 pounds and had an overall length of 41 inches. It used a ..45-caliber copper-cased cartridge, a 405-grain bullet and a charge of 55 grains of black powder. The best effective range for this carbine was under 300 yards, but significant hits still could be scored out to 600 yards. A bullet was driven out of the muzzle at a velocity of about 1,200 feet per second, with 1,650 foot-pounds of energy. The trapdoor Springfield could hurl a slug more than 1,000 yards and, with proper training, could be fired with accuracy 12 to 15 times per minute. The Colt Single Action Army revolver was chosen over other Colts, Remingtons and Starrs. By 1871, the percussion cap models were being converted for use with metallic cartridges. Ordnance testing in 1874 narrowed the field to two final contenders: the Colt Single Action Army and the Smith & Wesson Schofield. The Schofield won only in speed of ejecting empty cartridges. The Colt won in firing, sanding and rust trials and had fewer, simpler and stronger parts. The Model "P" had a barrel of 7.5 inches and fired six .45-caliber metallic cartridges with 28 grains of black powder. It had a muzzle velocity of 810 feet per second, with 400 foot-pounds of energy. Its effective range dropped off rapidly over 60 yards, however. The standard U.S. issue of the period had a blue finish, case-hardened hammer and frame, and walnut grips. The Colt became ubiquitous on the frontier. To the soldier it was a "thumb-buster," to the lawman a "peacemaker" or "equalizer," and to the civilian a "hog leg" or "plow-handle." The revolver was so strong and dependable that, with minor modifications, it was still being produced by the Colt Company into the 1980s."

I dont think theres a muzzleloader in the world who could crank out 15 shots a second.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

BS.
A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Other factors to think of, Rifleman can take cover and still shoot efectively, that is something a Longbowsman can't do.
Also a rifled musket (as opposed to a smoothbore) is generaly more accurate than a bow, and takes less time to aim and fire. Thus giving the rifleman the speed to get off his shot and get back to cover and reload.

 

[scottish144]

The bow has always been superior to the muzzle loader. It was because of native american raids that the 6-shooter was invented. Settlers and their muzzle loaders were getting pwned by native Americans due to faster fire rate.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Those muzzleloaders used at that time were area effect weapons to. I also doubt those muzzleloaders had a 300 yard range.

 

[Rastus]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rastus

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
ask the native americans
\thread

| :thumbsup:

By that time we werent really using muzzle loaders. This is a good read about the weapons used at that time.

Heres a excerpt

"The guns were all tested for defective cartridges, endurance, accuracy, rapidity of fire, firing with excessive charges, and effects of dust and rust. The Springfield was the winner. The Model 1873 carried by the 7th Cavalry was a carbine that weighed 7 pounds and had an overall length of 41 inches. It used a ..45-caliber copper-cased cartridge, a 405-grain bullet and a charge of 55 grains of black powder. The best effective range for this carbine was under 300 yards, but significant hits still could be scored out to 600 yards. A bullet was driven out of the muzzle at a velocity of about 1,200 feet per second, with 1,650 foot-pounds of energy. The trapdoor Springfield could hurl a slug more than 1,000 yards and, with proper training, could be fired with accuracy 12 to 15 times per minute. The Colt Single Action Army revolver was chosen over other Colts, Remingtons and Starrs. By 1871, the percussion cap models were being converted for use with metallic cartridges. Ordnance testing in 1874 narrowed the field to two final contenders: the Colt Single Action Army and the Smith & Wesson Schofield. The Schofield won only in speed of ejecting empty cartridges. The Colt won in firing, sanding and rust trials and had fewer, simpler and stronger parts. The Model "P" had a barrel of 7.5 inches and fired six .45-caliber metallic cartridges with 28 grains of black powder. It had a muzzle velocity of 810 feet per second, with 400 foot-pounds of energy. Its effective range dropped off rapidly over 60 yards, however. The standard U.S. issue of the period had a blue finish, case-hardened hammer and frame, and walnut grips. The Colt became ubiquitous on the frontier. To the soldier it was a "thumb-buster," to the lawman a "peacemaker" or "equalizer," and to the civilian a "hog leg" or "plow-handle." The revolver was so strong and dependable that, with minor modifications, it was still being produced by the Colt Company into the 1980s."

I dont think theres a muzzleloader in the world who could crank out 15 shots a second.

Daniel Boone didn't have that kind of weapon, yet the Indians with their bows didn't stand a chance. Even in Boone's day, the smoothbore musket was still the standard arm. The Pennsylvania (or Kentucky) rifle was in the minority.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Those muzzleloaders used at that time were area effect weapons to. I also doubt those muzzleloaders had a 300 yard range.

You really need to nail down an exact time period. A "first run" muzzle loader as it were obviously would be vastly inferior to the last run muzzle loaders with rifling. But, a good muzzleloader is vastly superior in every way to the best longbow ever made except in range.

Now, take an average to poor muzzleloader against a longbow thats a whole different story. At that point, simple training times would lean to the muzzleloader even though its less effective, but due to the acceptance of the weapon development would then take place which would in time make it a superior weapon to the longbow.

 

[scottish144]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
A ball is much more likely to knock you down and KEEP you down, where as a arrow is in most cases not a knock down punch.

Uh, there are several differnt types of arrows. The mongols invented heavy arrows for piercing shields (think huge roman shields). Also, an arrow provides extra shock simply due to the fact that it is visibly stuck in you, and it provides a physical hinderance in the fact that it is simply in the way. Also, most people instinctivly try to pull them out of themselves when hit. This HURTS LIKE HELL if the head is properly designed, thus further occupying the target.

A ball will penetrate more, and hurt like hell, but it lacks all of the above.

 

[Hacp]

archers with bullet proof vests FTW!

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

BS.
A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Entirely untrue.

Look at any muzzle loader. What is missing from it that is on modern guns? A sight. That is because you didn't aim a muzzle loader because of the belch of flame and smoke that rose from it when you shot your round. You turned your head down and away (It wasn't untill that latter half of the 19th century that sights were introduced I believe, once technology had advanced far enough so you could actually look down the barrel of your gun without getting a face full of flame).

Therefore, you had to be within about 100 yards to get any sort of effective fire. Would a bullet go farther than an arrow? Sure. But I'm talking about effective fire here. If you put longbowmen vs. muzzle loaders at 300 yards the longbowmen would win every time because the muzzle loaders wouldn't be able to hit barely anything.

Why do you think they had massed formations? This is so they could advance, get in real close, fire a few volleys and then fix bayonets and charge. Early muzzle loader tactics always had the bayonet charge because you weren't actually aiming your weapon, so if you didn't charge it was hard to actually finish off the enemy.

Another advantage of Longbowmen is that they could fire in all weather. Damp or wet weather would make it nearly impossible or impossible for a muzzle loader to fire. Particularly the early ones where you dumped your powder in a big pan sticking out the side of the gun. This also meant that this powder could be blown away in the wind, yet another disadvantage of the muzzle loader.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Rastus

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Rastus

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
ask the native americans
\thread

| :thumbsup:

By that time we werent really using muzzle loaders. This is a good read about the weapons used at that time.

Heres a excerpt

"The guns were all tested for defective cartridges, endurance, accuracy, rapidity of fire, firing with excessive charges, and effects of dust and rust. The Springfield was the winner. The Model 1873 carried by the 7th Cavalry was a carbine that weighed 7 pounds and had an overall length of 41 inches. It used a ..45-caliber copper-cased cartridge, a 405-grain bullet and a charge of 55 grains of black powder. The best effective range for this carbine was under 300 yards, but significant hits still could be scored out to 600 yards. A bullet was driven out of the muzzle at a velocity of about 1,200 feet per second, with 1,650 foot-pounds of energy. The trapdoor Springfield could hurl a slug more than 1,000 yards and, with proper training, could be fired with accuracy 12 to 15 times per minute. The Colt Single Action Army revolver was chosen over other Colts, Remingtons and Starrs. By 1871, the percussion cap models were being converted for use with metallic cartridges. Ordnance testing in 1874 narrowed the field to two final contenders: the Colt Single Action Army and the Smith & Wesson Schofield. The Schofield won only in speed of ejecting empty cartridges. The Colt won in firing, sanding and rust trials and had fewer, simpler and stronger parts. The Model "P" had a barrel of 7.5 inches and fired six .45-caliber metallic cartridges with 28 grains of black powder. It had a muzzle velocity of 810 feet per second, with 400 foot-pounds of energy. Its effective range dropped off rapidly over 60 yards, however. The standard U.S. issue of the period had a blue finish, case-hardened hammer and frame, and walnut grips. The Colt became ubiquitous on the frontier. To the soldier it was a "thumb-buster," to the lawman a "peacemaker" or "equalizer," and to the civilian a "hog leg" or "plow-handle." The revolver was so strong and dependable that, with minor modifications, it was still being produced by the Colt Company into the 1980s."

I dont think theres a muzzleloader in the world who could crank out 15 shots a second.

Daniel Boone didn't have that kind of weapon, yet the Indians with their bows didn't stand a chance. Even in Boone's day, the smoothbore musket was still the standard arm. The Pennsylvania (or Kentucky) rifle was in the minority.

Which again means me need to nail down a time period when discussing these weapons.

 

[scottish144]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Those muzzleloaders used at that time were area effect weapons to. I also doubt those muzzleloaders had a 300 yard range.

You really need to nail down an exact time period. A "first run" muzzle loader as it were obviously would be vastly inferior to the last run muzzle loaders with rifling. But, a good muzzleloader is vastly superior in every way to the best longbow ever made except in range.

Now, take an average to poor muzzleloader against a longbow thats a whole different story. At that point, simple training times would lean to the muzzleloader even though its less effective, but due to the acceptance of the weapon development would then take place which would in time make it a superior weapon to the longbow.

Ur forgetting rate of fire. A muzzle loader gets 2 shots per minute at best. A good archer can pump out 6-10 accurate shots (or possibly more) per minute at maximum range.

 

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Those muzzleloaders used at that time were area effect weapons to. I also doubt those muzzleloaders had a 300 yard range.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sharpshooter.htm
Qualified recruits had to place 10 shots in a 10-inch circle at 200 yards, firing any rifle they chose from any position they preferred.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: scottish144

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Those muzzleloaders used at that time were area effect weapons to. I also doubt those muzzleloaders had a 300 yard range.

You really need to nail down an exact time period. A "first run" muzzle loader as it were obviously would be vastly inferior to the last run muzzle loaders with rifling. But, a good muzzleloader is vastly superior in every way to the best longbow ever made except in range.

Now, take an average to poor muzzleloader against a longbow thats a whole different story. At that point, simple training times would lean to the muzzleloader even though its less effective, but due to the acceptance of the weapon development would then take place which would in time make it a superior weapon to the longbow.

Ur forgetting rate of fire. A muzzle loader gets 2 shots per minute at best. A good archer can pump out 6-10 accurate shots (or possibly more) per minute at maximum range.

I've always said rate of fire is to the longbow. But (And this isnt with same time period weapons) I'll take 600-1000 yard accuracy and 2 shots per minute versus 10 shots per minute with a 180-250 yard range.

As for same period weapons, its really a tough choice. i dont honestly know the true ffective range of a smoothbore musket from that time period. I couldnt imagine its much more then the longbow if at all. Also, the musket is at a serious disadvantage in both rate of fire and effectiveness in weather. If you have an old flintlock theres a reason they say "Keep your pwder dry"........

 

[bootymac]

And that's why 100 archers don't go marching up to 100 gunmen

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: SilentRavens
Short of a close range crossbows the gun will fundamentally have more piercing power.

So at a similar range say 30 yrds w/o armor you would be right. However, increase that to say 50 yrds and now the target is wearing steel armor and the answer becomes different. Of course this all depends on the ability of the shooters, what type of bow and arrow we are talking about, and what kind of muzzle loader...

Ok, hypothetical situation, 100 unarmored revolutionary age muzzleloaders vs 100 english longbowman or 100 mongol composite bowmen.

oh ok.. i'll load up Age of empires II..

English Longbowmen vs musketeers

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: her209
How about 100000 muzzle loaders versus 10 gats?

if the gats are wearing kevlar, i'll pick the gatlings

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: rmrf

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: datalink7
100 Longbowmen vs. 100 Muskets. Longbowmen win every time. They can fire farther (300 yards), have better armor piercing (could pierce the heaviest plate) and could fire many times faster.

Why then did Muskets become popular? To become profiecient with the longbow, it took 10 plus years of constant training. To be able to use a Musket, it took about 3 weeks. So a Feudal Lord could raise a large army quick, then send them back to work in the fields after the fighting was over. Longbowmen required having a standing army, which cost money and a lot of time.

That's the gist of it.

A good muzzleloader will outrange the longbow by a wide margin. In the hands of a skilled shooter with a quality muzzleloader, there simply no comparison in terms of range. And theres no longbow in the world that makes pinpoint shots at 300 yards. At that range its an area effect weapon.

Those muzzleloaders used at that time were area effect weapons to. I also doubt those muzzleloaders had a 300 yard range.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sharpshooter.htm
Qualified recruits had to place 10 shots in a 10-inch circle at 200 yards, firing any rifle they chose from any position they preferred.

This was at the hight of muzzle loader technology, as breach loaders were already or nearly being introduced. I had assumed we were talking about when both archers and muzzle loaders were both still used on the battlefield.

 

[rmrf]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: rmrf

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sharpshooter.htm
Qualified recruits had to place 10 shots in a 10-inch circle at 200 yards, firing any rifle they chose from any position they preferred.

This was at the hight of muzzle loader technology, as breach loaders were already or nearly being introduced. I had assumed we were talking about when both archers and muzzle loaders were both still used on the battlefield.

que specop.

WHAT'S THE FVCKING TIME PERIOD!?!?!?!??!

 

[her209]

Arrows have the advantage of killing silently.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: rmrf

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: rmrf

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sharpshooter.htm
Qualified recruits had to place 10 shots in a 10-inch circle at 200 yards, firing any rifle they chose from any position they preferred.

This was at the hight of muzzle loader technology, as breach loaders were already or nearly being introduced. I had assumed we were talking about when both archers and muzzle loaders were both still used on the battlefield.

que specop.

WHAT'S THE FVCKING TIME PERIOD!?!?!?!??!

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: SilentRavens
Short of a close range crossbows the gun will fundamentally have more piercing power.

So at a similar range say 30 yrds w/o armor you would be right. However, increase that to say 50 yrds and now the target is wearing steel armor and the answer becomes different. Of course this all depends on the ability of the shooters, what type of bow and arrow we are talking about, and what kind of muzzle loader...

Ok, hypothetical situation, 100 unarmored revolutionary age muzzleloaders vs 100 english longbowman or 100 mongol composite bowmen.

I assume "revolutionary" means American Revolution.

So, rifles FTW.

 

[rmrf]

http://www.americanrevolution.org/ferguson.html

First, Patrick Ferguson would have been a "hero" of the Revolutionary War, had the British won! He was born in 1744, the son of James Ferguson, an illustrious Scottish jurist. He was educated in the London Military Academy and was given a commission in the famed Scottish cavalry regiment, the Scots Greys. He became interested in musketry and invented a superior weapon to the standard "Brown Bess" musket. His was breech loading and weighed a mere 7.5 pounds (compared with the Brown Bess's 14 pounds). He demonstrated his rifle's capabilities to the British Senior Generals by firing at a rate of 4 rounds per minute at a target 300 yards away. He increased the rate of fire to six rounds a minute at a target 100 yards off.

google must have broken for everyone else, eh? these articles are extremely easy to find....

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: rmrf

http://www.americanrevolution.org/ferguson.html

First, Patrick Ferguson would have been a "hero" of the Revolutionary War, had the British won! He was born in 1744, the son of James Ferguson, an illustrious Scottish jurist. He was educated in the London Military Academy and was given a commission in the famed Scottish cavalry regiment, the Scots Greys. He became interested in musketry and invented a superior weapon to the standard "Brown Bess" musket. His was breech loading and weighed a mere 7.5 pounds (compared with the Brown Bess's 14 pounds). He demonstrated his rifle's capabilities to the British Senior Generals by firing at a rate of 4 rounds per minute at a target 300 yards away. He increased the rate of fire to six rounds a minute at a target 100 yards off.

google must have broken for everyone else, eh? these articles are extremely easy to find....

That was the exception to the rule.

From the same website:

In the early 1700s the Brown Bess Flintlock made its appearance. It probably got its name from the acid-brown treatment of its barrel...By this time, the flintlock was accurate up to about 80 yards but nobody could aim at a man and kill him at 200 yards. A shooter of average experience could load and fire two to three rounds per minute.

 

[her209]

Also, you guys are forgetting that the archers can fire more than one arrow at a time.