Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueblaze
So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?
Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?
Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.
Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!
|
Interesting post, and points. Appreciated.
One has to consider the efficiency of the weapon within the context of how it was used. From the Revolution up to (and through, in many cases) the Civil War, armed conflicts, excluding of course guerrilla-type fighting, armies fought rank upon rank, shoulder to shoulder. In that type of fighting the Brown Bess was devastating, particularly because many troops adopted the "buck and ball" load: a single ball of the caliber of the musket in question (in the case of the Brown Bess, a .75 caliber ball, though the concept was adopted for other similar weapons as well), with several round lead balls of smaller caliber rammed on the top of the large ball. It wasn't very accurate but a distances of 50 yards or less (the average distance between the combatant forces) but it didn't have to be. The effect was similar to a shotgun with single- or double-00 buckshot, "devastating" is a mild word to use. No good at anything approaching long range, but it didn't have to be.
Modern arms are governed (more or less) by the Hague Convention of 1899, which evolved, more or less, into the Geneva Convention rules, which didn't exist back then. No exploding rounds, no expanding bullets, etc. But the post to which this response is directed is correct. I don't want to be shot by anything, but if I had no other choice BUT to be shot, I'd choose the .223 round over the Brown Bess and similar weapons' "buck and ball" load any time.