Duck hunting or not?

[billwatson2]

I went to my first battle event this year. One umbrella group opened fire on the enemy at about 100 yards with leveled muskets. Another umbrella group, also about a hundred yards away from the opposing force, aimed at the flocks of geese overhead. Those who leveled their muskets in that second umbrella grop got yelled at and ordered to point up at the sky. The same inconsistencies were visible on the "other team" in the distance, as well.

Aiming high makes some sense when opposing forces are too close, like 20 yards; it keeps someone from getting a face full of black powder. (The "alternative" to being that close, of course, is to not fire at all, but that's a different discussion.)

So here's some thoughts.

Why do we aim at the sky? Is it to confuse spectators? Is it to prove that 150 years later we still don't understand the ballistics of the rifle musket most of us carry?

We're firing blanks. At this event everyone was ballistic, pun intended, about inspections, even late arrivals who missed drill got a separate inspection upon arrival in addition to one final inspection as we went out to the battle.

If some little kid dropped a pebble down a muzzle when nobody was looking, aiming at the sky isn't going to matter a bit, because that pebble is coming out of there crazy.

Why do we shoot clouds? Remind me. And remember, I'm everybody's nagging grandmother on gun safety. But this sky shooting, unlike NOT drawing rammers and other things we do for safety, makes no sense at all.

Why are some groups doing it and others not?

And why doesn't someone make the artillery aim at the sky? They could dig in the trails after cranking it up to the maximum elevation and surely attain 45 degrees.

[RJSamp]

yea I hear you.....somewhere about the time of the Wisconsin glacier, I was taught to never aim at another living thing unless I wanted to kill it....and gun control was being able to hit what you aimed at......

no need for duck hunting at 50+ yards......but somehow aiming directly at another human being 100 or 200 yards away doesn't make sense to me from a safety standpoint.....even though ballistically aiming slightly over their heads probably increases the chances for a center mass impact with a live round 1860's rifle musket. I think it's something like a 4.5' drop at 450 yards?

as for artillery and duck hunting....those bolts that they are firing at us at a 'slight elevation' are going to travel 1,700+ yards.....that's beyond the parking lot in many cases....I have yet to see a John Gibbon style artillerist run up the screws to lower the muzzle and 'simulate' knock out entire fence sections with cansister as they did at the corn field in the Miller farm yard at Antietam. Or were you thinking that reenacting artillery' muzzle elevation was even to slightly below level.....or even aimed 'down' when firing from an elevated position? Most I've seen are adischarged at 'slight' elevation.....

[billwatson2]

What was explained to me during the Wisconsin glacier was that if you wanted to hit what you were aiming at, you should use bullets.

[BurroughsBattery]

Bill,
The US system of artillery carriages will allow only about 6 degrees of elevation. Wiard's system allows much more. I had an idiot at 140th Franklin jump up and down that I was aiming at people, I would direct the sound at them and hurt the infantry........They were 1000-1200 Yards distant.......
I bought a decible meter and did a few experiments. Firing our cannon at 100 yards, straight on the reading was like 90 Dbl. 20 yards to the left/right was 85. Just like I thought, no laser beam of sound. (a 9mm pistol is like 120 decibles for reference)
I love taking aim across the field. Infantry, Counter battery Artillery ,Cavalry it is always neat to go through the aiming process. I alsways imagine where I would lead Cav. The gunner calling out ranges and types of ammo is standard in our drill. I guess after you have live fired at real world ranges it is just dull to not aim the piece. (It is not right that it is not recoiling 10 feet either, but that is another story.
I agree. Duck hunting is dumb.

Take care,
Steve Cameron

[TB1861]

I once talked to an 1812 reenactor who told me they aimed just in front of the feet of the other side, you had to be way too close to even fire for it to be visible to the audience. They tested it on a gravel parking lot and were not able to get anything to fly up in any range that didn't cause the powder to fall out before they could pull the trigger. I have thought that it would be worth testing in volley fire with .58 muskets and heavy charges, hang up some sheets and see what happens. It would if it works look better than duck hunting.

[Rob Weaver]

With new recruits, I've paced off 100 yards and 30 yards, the latter often being considered the close limit of safety. It's about the point where you can distinguish individual buttons on the man's coat. Giving a man something concrete to remember has proven itself more useful than telling him not to fire at under 30 yards.
Now to the problem of duckhunting: I think this is part of a problem I've seen growing in Civil War for 5 or 6 years. For lack of a better term, I'm gonna call it "safety over-caution." The endless inspections, the continuous natter of "keep those muzzles high" do not, IMHO, reinforce safety. They reinforce stupidity. Frankly, they make me nervous, and nervous people are the ones most likely to commit a gun accident. I don't think it's just that I'm getting old and have been around guns since God was a private. I think we're reinforcing safety the wrong way.
I'm not sure what the right way is, really, but that's why this forum exists, right?

[RJSamp]

What was explained to me during the Wisconsin glacier was that if you wanted to hit what you were aiming at, you should use bullets.

Correct, and always treat a fire arm as if it were loaded with bullets.....ALWAYS.

[TheQM]

I once talked to an 1812 reenactor who told me they aimed just in front of the feet of the other side, you had to be way too close to even fire for it to be visible to the audience. They tested it on a gravel parking lot and were not able to get anything to fly up in any range that didn't cause the powder to fall out before they could pull the trigger. I have thought that it would be worth testing in volley fire with .58 muskets and heavy charges, hang up some sheets and see what happens. It would if it works look better than duck hunting.

Tom,

This makes perfect sense, both for safety and authenticity. By shooting high, we insure that any unburned powder or other debris, is likely to hit people in the face. If we would aim for the knees, or lower, we are protected by heavy wool clothing. Even in the extreme case of a projectile being fired, it's still safer. If we are aiming down, the projectile will soon hit the ground, rather the flying off to God knows where. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd sure rather take a chance of being hit the legs, rather than my beautiful face!

[RJSamp]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd sure rather take a chance of being hit the legs, rather than my beautiful face!


Awesome Bill!

One of the issues with aiming DOWN is the unpacked powder......roughly half of the powder is unburned when it comes out of the barrel....aiming down might increase that percentage...and increase the velocity of the particles (vs duck hunting)....some of the particles will come out level (it's a cone after all), and also have more burning powder flaming into the ground with still smoldering particles....and of course your margin for error with uneven terrain, closing rates, postures of the shooter and the target.....

the other issue is the Decibels from a directly aimed discharge....my first event ever (spectator) a reenactor got pinged in the ear....

I'd love to see a decibel reading of duck hunting at 30, 50 75, 100 yards vs aimed directly vs aimed at their feet...

would be neat to see some backdrop spray pattern analysis of aiming downward....how high up do particles impact above the aiming point at 30 yards, 50 yards....

My gut reaction is that between the unburned particles cone spray from an unstable target\shooter LOF, increased decibels impacting ear drums, and sheets of flame disgorging against dry vegetation this might not be the right answer.....

maybe the answer is to start firing at 200 yards....and start taking massive casualties from artillery and massed rifle fire sooner rather than closer.....

[TB1861]

You could engage at the actual distances you are trying to "reenact" and take the same percentage of casualties, I know that smacks of elitism in that it would require research but it has been done successfully in the past.
As an experiment use a level and a protractor and see what kind of angle you are holding the musket barrel to find how close you have to be before you actually pour powder out the barrel. Don't forget that after a shot or two the barrel isn't very slippery inside from fouling. If you are setting the ground on fire you might want to back off a bit on your charge.
Aiming up in the air may be good for the guys directly in front of you but there is something at the other end of the arc.

[TB1861]

As it was more convenient for me to drag out some of my tools and using the magic of math and the mystical arts of drafting I drew a scaled version of my experiment. Due to constraints of eyesight, paper size and the scale I was using I could only check out to about 50 yards. Setting the musket at 5' high to hit the toes of people standing too close you need to have the musket just off of parallel to the ground. If you are pouring powder out when aiming at the feet then you should be using your bayonet because they are in reach of that very dependable weapon. So grab a pencil a bit of paper and a ruler and check for yourself if you don't know how to do this then find somebody that can. I bet there is even a way to do it on a computer and you have one of those handy if your are reading this.

[wheres_my_horse]

Using a 50 yard range and a 5 foot tall person, you are looking at a 30 to 1 ratio.

Put another way, a 3 band enfield has a 39" barrel. The muzzle of the barrel needs to be 1.3" lower than the breech to satisfy that angle.

[flattop32355]

Well, since most of us are at least 5'7" tall, that skews the data..... ;)

[billwatson2]

"The muzzle of the barrel needs to be 1.3" lower than the breech to satisfy that angle."

Does that bear out the earlier post regarding 1812 reenactors aiming at the ground in front of the enemy? Not enough to be noticeable to spectators and not enough to pour out the powder?

[TB1861]

Correct, and always treat a fire arm as if it were loaded with bullets.....ALWAYS. Which is a good reason to not point them up in the air for whatever might be in them to fall on the unsuspecting at the other end of the arc.
BTW the 5' number is an average height for people not holding their muskets level with the tops of their heads but at a point somewhere near their shoulder. It would more likely be a bit lower but I went for a nice round number.

[TB1861]

Bill, I put a glass bead in a carbine and using the rooms in my house so I didn't have to get out a tape measure, the bead would roll out if you aimed at the ground at 30 feet but wouldn't if you stepped back to about 40. Those distances are too close for comfort anyway. The bead had weight, was very round and smooth, the carbine has a mirror like finish in the very clean barrel, powder in a fired musket would not roll out as easily.

[TB1861]

Using a 50 yard range and a 5 foot tall person, you are looking at a 30 to 1 ratio.

Put another way, a 3 band enfield has a 39" barrel. The muzzle of the barrel needs to be 1.3" lower than the breech to satisfy that angle.
Held my Enfield up to the overhang of my kitchen counter top, dropped the muzzle 1.5", it looks like you are holding it flat, with the muzzle weight of most muskets it would be very easy to acquire this angle during the command "aim".

[Silas]

... the bead would roll out if you aimed at the ground at 30 feet but wouldn't if you stepped back to about 40. Those distances are too close for comfort anyway.

Funny you should mention thirty feet being too close for comfort as said distance is allowed in Oregon per the Northwest Civil War Council Safety Rules :


Article VII. Safety Rules
C. General Battlefield Rules.
17. A range of 30 feet is accepted as the reasonable and prudent distance to fire towards opposing troops unless otherwise practiced.
Source : http://www.nwcwc.org/pdf/ncwcsafetyrules5_08.pdf

The distance may be accepted locally, but it is neither reasonable or prudent.

[billwatson2]

"17. A range of 30 feet is accepted as the reasonable and prudent distance to fire towards opposing troops unless otherwise practiced."

Amazing. AND it makes no sense: "unless otherwise practiced." What does that mean?

I've got to check out other stuff on that site. That one reads like the Mad Hatter wrote it for the Red Queen.

[Poor Private]

Ok I agree with the firing in front of the oposing force at thier toes, but as we get closer the muzzle gets lower thats fine also. Thats all well and good for the front rank, but at what point does the rear rank start interfering with the front rank, or vice versa. Most guys unless they are a foot taller than thier front rank fellers are going to be on tip toe, or thier stocks will be out of battery to thier sholders to aim at the ground. Not to mention when we get to the oblique firing. Or de we just have the fron rank take a knee. I can see no problem when it is skirmishers firing, or at small events when it is 1 rank only instead of 2, or behind fortifications, or in trenches-- guys get tired holding up the front of the weapon at the forestock area, anyway I see lots of drooping when it is an extended period of time, since most guys the left arm is the weaker.

[TB1861]

Don't stand with a tall guy in front of you, take a hint from all the above posts and consider just how slight the drop is when in safe firing distances, I don't think you need to get fitted for ballet shoes just yet.

[Tkessen]

If my opponent is anything further than 75 yards, I aim to their side, but still level on them, once in that 75 yard range, the barrel goes up untill it gets to about 30 degrees. That elevation is sufficient to ensure that no powder burns are the effect...

[TB1861]

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=156&pictureid=1300 This photo shows the amount of drop for 50 yards, I think it can be done without being launched up in the air like a bottle rocket. It also looks ever so slightly less like you have no idea where the enemy might be or you are desperately protecting yourself from incoming pterodactyls.

[TB1861]

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=156&pictureid=1301 30 degree elevation, look out ducks we have decided a little duck hunting in the middle of a battle would be a good thing.

[31stWisconsin]

I aim center of mass. We are already breaking a major rule of firearm safety in this hobby, there is no way around that, and I won't pretend that slightly aiming to the side/top/bottom suddenly make us safe and following the four rules. If there is debris in the barrel, the flight will be erratic anyways, and by holding the weapon level, the debris will succumb to gravity and hit the ground, rather than elevating the barrel which will make the debris fly farther. The only reason to elevate is if there are people, namely casualties, directly in front, so they are not hit by the cone of muzzle blast.

The best ways to mitigate the risk of aiming and shooting weapons at each other are to have positive control of what goes in it in the first place, and to have realistic engagement distances. Any other measures are just feel good practices at best.

Aim center of mass. It's a soldier skill.

[wheres_my_horse]

Well, since most of us are at least 5'7" tall, that skews the data..... ;)

I chose 5 feet since that is what the previous poster used (and it worked out well for the ratio). If I had used my height of 6'5 I was positive I would have hammered for that. :wink:

BTW, at 6 Feet tall still using 50 yards distance it is a 25 to 1 ratio. So the magic number for the Enfield barrel becomes 1.6" (actually 1.56").

I still think the powder is staying in the barrel.

6 feet tall at the "Oregon" 30 yards minimum is a 15 to 1 ratio, so the Enfield barrel would need be canted down 2.6".

YMMV

[Rob Weaver]

So aiming low is actually safer than aiming high - why did I never think of that before!?! How can we get the greater portion of our hobby ot accept this heresy? If I'm the only guy doing this in a line, they're going to ask me to leave. Possibly not even politely.

[Silas]

6 feet tall at the "Oregon" 30 yards minimum is a 15 to 1 ratio, so the Enfield barrel would need be canted down 2.6".

YMMV

The otherwise overly safe Oregonians use a distance of thirty FEET, not thirty yards. And this is in a state where you cannot pump your own gas due to safety issues. Really.

Now, back to the thread.

[TB1861]

Unless you are wearing a gun turret for a hat then you need to measure from your shoulder or if you shoot from the hip then from the hip.

[Bill_Cross]

I like the notion of confusing spectators.

They won't notice the inconsistencies of our kit, age or girth then. It's a viable way to go, folks. ;)

[PMB1861]

This is just so amusing... all of it.

How about this? Instead of duck hunting or worm shooting... You could just use the ramrod for what it is intended for, i.e. seating the charge in the bore so it goes off completely and correctly.

Anyone who shoots a ramrod during an event is publicly ridiculed for being an idiot and either leaves the hobby or grows up and learns how to do it right and safely. Officers and NCO's who fail to supervise their men and let a ramrod get shot lose their straps or stripes and go back to the ranks for their incompetence.

After a year or two of events where rammers are required to be used everyone should be trained up to do it right as opposed to doing it wrong and we'll have cut down all the excess rank wearers in the hobby and increased the average company strength by returing said incompetent strap and stripe wearers to the ranks where they should have been all along.

THEN we can get to worrying properly about other pressing matters like what bugle call is sounded first in the morning or how to combat the insidious creep of waistlines and age in the reenacting ranks.

[Bill_Cross]

That's a really good suggestion.

Therefore it's unlikely it will ever be adopted....

[billwatson2]

"Officers and NCO's who fail to supervise their men and let a ramrod get shot lose their straps or stripes and go back to the ranks for their incompetence."

If demotion for incompetence could be enforced, don't you think we'd have seen some sign of that by now?

What we're seeing is prevention measures that don't prevent anything adopted en masse as an alternative to requiring competency. Another name for it is madness.

[TB1861]

I like the notion of confusing spectators.

They won't notice the inconsistencies of our kit, age or girth then. It's a viable way to go, folks. ;)
I thought that was why people used fake accents.

[TB1861]

"Officers and NCO's who fail to supervise their men and let a ramrod get shot lose their straps or stripes and go back to the ranks for their incompetence."

If demotion for incompetence could be enforced, don't you think we'd have seen some sign of that by now?

What we're seeing is prevention measures that don't prevent anything adopted en masse as an alternative to requiring competency. Another name for it is madness.
That is so nicely put I can see why you have chosen to publish your writings.

[Bill_Cross]

We propose sensible changes, and then real life happens.

[mike51tenn]

I thought that was why people used fake accents.

We're all Irish when it comes down to it..........

[reddcorp]

This is just so amusing... all of it.

How about this? Instead of duck hunting or worm shooting... You could just use the ramrod for what it is intended for, i.e. seating the charge in the bore so it goes off completely and correctly.

Anyone who shoots a ramrod during an event is publicly ridiculed for being an idiot and either leaves the hobby or grows up and learns how to do it right and safely. Officers and NCO's who fail to supervise their men and let a ramrod get shot lose their straps or stripes and go back to the ranks for their incompetence.

After a year or two of events where rammers are required to be used everyone should be trained up to do it right as opposed to doing it wrong and we'll have cut down all the excess rank wearers in the hobby and increased the average company strength by returing said incompetent strap and stripe wearers to the ranks where they should have been all along.

THEN we can get to worrying properly about other pressing matters like what bugle call is sounded first in the morning or how to combat the insidious creep of waistlines and age in the reenacting ranks.

Please excuse me if I don't jump on board with your suggestion. I've no problem with using rammers at LHs and other events, where there's no one down range from me. But when there's someone opposite, I'm not willing to trust that those folks have been properly trained and drilled on the proper loading procedures, particularly the part about putting the rammer where it belongs. I'm fairly confident that the fellas in my unit and batt. know what to do, but the rest.?????? Heck, even soldiers in the day, who drilled and drilled every day, sometimes miscued and....there goes a rammer down range. If you happen to be on the receiving end, you've had a bad day. Just my opinion. So, just in case your's was not tongue in cheek. Don't do it.

A.W.Redd

[TB1861]

We propose sensible changes, and then real life happens.What a polite way to say "people are idiots".

[vamick]

Tho I usually deal with artillery I had a chance to skirmish at a non disclosed event a few years back and guess what..I fully used my rammer just like it was meant to be, just like they did back in the war and *GASP* I managed to NOT shoot it down range...and I didnt duck hunt...we have a "over caution, safety obcessed" society..all it takes in THINKING about what one is doing..all this Im sure makes me a bad bad man, but it was fun using that rammer and the weapon went BOOMB instead of FUUUUF! ;)

[reb64]

With powder prices and all Im might only snap caps if that were ordered, i want someone in my sights at reasonable distances for safety of course.

[Bill_Cross]

What a polite way to say "people are idiots".
No, just a recognition that we're dealing with political groups (and reenactor umbrella organizations are just that, not the military organizations they pretend to be).

That means change happens slowly and incrementally. We, the "experts" here, shoot off our mouths, but in many cases the leaders of those umbrella organizations aren't even members of this board, much less listening to our collective wisdom.

Does that make them idiots? Well, the various ANVs, USVs etc. seem to be able to put troops in the field year in, year out without our help.

Idiot savants perhaps? ;)

[PMB1861]

I'm fairly confident that the fellas in my unit and batt. know what to do, but the rest.?????? Heck, even soldiers in the day, who drilled and drilled every day, sometimes miscued and....there goes a rammer down range. If you happen to be on the receiving end, you've had a bad day. Just my opinion. So, just in case your's was not tongue in cheek. Don't do it.

A.W.Redd

Andy, not tongue in cheek. Absolutely serious. If reenactors put their focus on "being brilliant at the basics" there would be no need to have a multi page discussion of the merits and demerits of Duck Hunting and Worm Shooting. Instead we'd all just do it right and we'd plan our events around a 19th Century battle experience not our 21st century risk averse culture that changes things and puts in mindless rules to prevent the mindless from possibly hurting themselves or others.

The issue has been beat to death before... when was the last time someone was actually hurt by a ramrod shot out of a musket? In campaigner events ramrods are used all the time and no one has been hurt by a fired ramrod and in my recollection in the last 5 years no one has even fired a ramrod at an event. I know campaigners aren't any 'better' than the rest of the hobby, they just hold themselves to a higher standards in some areas (too bad it's not in all areas).

If the hobby as a whole were to hold ourselves to higher standards and did things right, there would be no need to lament the things we've been doing wrong.

And with that, I'm certain the Safety Police will come and lament my risky behavior, so I will yield the floor with the final statement that I do what the events organizer say they want done. If they're a "no-rammers" event then they stay in the channel, no grumbling. If they say use ramrods, then I breath a sigh of relief and make sure I'm on my A Game to keep it safe and real.

[Calum]

Couldn't agree more Mr. Berezuk!

Training to use the ramrod correctly gives you a respect for three shots a minute that pouring powder will never instill, even without having to worry about getting the ball out of the wrapper.

Respectfully,
Calum

[1stWiscTrooper]

Artillery uses their rammers for every shot.......why not infantry?????

[reddiamond]

I trust myself to handle my rammer properly.
I do not trust someone else to handle their rammer properly.

If we did everything right we wouldn't need liability insurance.

I do not agree with the duck hunting approach to safety, but I do not like to see rammers being drawn opposite me in "battle."

Yes, artillery uses rammers each time they fire. I would not be opposed to infantrymen using their rammers- provided that the also carry a sponge and swab between shots. That should make our 40 rounds last a good long time.

Scot Buffington

[billwatson2]

I wasn't going to get into the ramrod thing this time, but what the heck. Has anyone actually fired a ramrod after ramming paper to see what happens? I haven't. But on the chance that someone actually did the experiments some of us contemplated a while back: Anyone?

Who wants to make a video? Maybe we're worrying about something that physics says isn't much even if someone goofs and fires a rammer. Maybe we're not.

[johnduffer]

I've been at (and put on) quite a few events where ramrods were used with no casualties and been to a couple of mainstream events where ramrods had to be left in camp. I think the fear at those events was not being skewered but rather some nut job ramming home a live round post inspection. I personally think the Interstate going to and from the event poses a greater risk than either but can see other points of view.

[1stSgt45PVI]

I promised myself I wouldn't post but I can't sit on my hands.
SAFETY is my primary concern for MY guys on the field and I'll do whatever it takes to keep them safe including almost knocking someone out (I'll go into that later).

I know that @ longer ranges we usually level and fire and then as we get closer and closer we elevate (within reason) before looking ridiculous. Once you get too close whats the point you'd be using the bayonet a rock or a buttstock anyway!

I know someone previously posted about lowering the muzzle, what about the fire coming out the end? Having night fired (as I'm sure most of us have) there is quite a flame there, quick but a flame none the less. We also need to remember that these weapons are "accurate" up to 300-500+ yds so @ 30 yds and elevating, your already shooting over their heads. Besides already leveling and aiming @ long ranges makes me uneasy, as others have said, don't aim unless you intend to kill.

Safety checks are completed repeatedly and still accidents happen. WE can thank the Gods that there have only been maybe 2 or 3 accidents in our hobby involving a projectile (that I know of) in the last 10yrs+? I've witnessed absolute stupidity where there was a Reb barrel literally up against my one Pvts cheek as he rounded a corner of a building, w/ his hammer cocked and finger on the trigger. He wanted him to surrender! :?: I told him sternly and not so politely, "get that gun out of his face," and he actually argued w/ me! It almost came to blows but luckily our Company commanders took care of that situation. @ 2 other events, one of my guys was shot in the neck w/a wonder wad and another in the arm by a rifle, actually going through his jacket and shirt, (again Company Officers on both sides took care of that).

Perhaps it isn't the Rifles and what we should look look and aiming @ but Pistols too! Proper loading techniques, maintenance & what NOT to use when loading your cylinders (we use toilet paper confetti). Perhaps some Company Officers & NCOs need to take their guys and re-teach BASIC safety and firearms handling?! :confused:

I apologize for the long tangent but when we discuss what WE look like and what WE do on the field, IMHO authenticity needs to take a backseat to safety. When someone shows me that there is a better way (which I know your all trying to find out), and it's approved by whomever in HQ, then I'll do it and so will my Boys.

Best regards,
Zak

[DamYankee25]

One thing I don't think that's been mentioned is simulated casualties on the ground in front of the muskets. Now, I agree the duck hunting thing is silliness and I hate getting so close I have to elevate, nothing bothers me more, especially in fields where there is enough room to have actual combat distance. But, if the casualties aren't pulled to the rear, which at a lot of event they aren't. It's loud down there. Elevating slightly does make it a little less loud. But no need to elevate to the point of silliness.

[Julio C. Zangroniz]

...perhaps it is time to contact those cable guys, The Mythbusters, and ask them to stage the "safe" firing of a rammer with a musket to see if it actually flies downrange, and how far.
You could even volunteer to be their "military consultant" for that particular segment.
Fame and fortune, here comes Mr. Bill!
And we all might finally have a *definite* answer about the question of exactly what happens when a musket fires a rammer.
Though I have been covering the hobby for 23 years and have heard about "many" incidents of a rammer firing, I have never witnessed one, nor I can recall having spoken with anyone who actually witnessed one.
The closest I came to that situation was at an event in North Carolina nearly 15 years ago, when a lingering ember caused a premature firing, as the new powder charge was being loaded, and the subsequent explosion injured at least one of the artillery crew, and made the remnants of the rammer fly downrange about 100 yards. Though I must confess I wasn't close enough to witness the event, though I photographed the injured man being removed from the field a couple of minutes later.
Julio

[hanktrent]

I wasn't going to get into the ramrod thing this time, but what the heck. Has anyone actually fired a ramrod after ramming paper to see what happens? I haven't. But on the chance that someone actually did the experiments some of us contemplated a while back: Anyone?


There are some anecotal accounts of ramrods being fired, and the report of an experiment, starting around page 8 of this thread, including posts #76 and 79 and 81:

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6512&page=8

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[97indiana]

I have not personally seen a rammer fired from a musket. Like one of the posts above, however, I have heard the story. I may know someone who saw it, so I will get back on that if so.

But, I can attest to the fact that I have projected a rammer out of my barrel a couple of times. I was cleaning my musket at home once when I ended up getting my brass brush and a patch stuck. I am not sure what made it stick, I think too much patch. I therefore used my CO2 powered round discharger to dislodge the rammer. I knew this would fly, so I was on my back deck and fired it with the round discharger. I pointed it at the ground and it was a good thing I did. This deck is around 20' off the ground, and it embedded itself about 12 in into the ground at a 45 degree down angle. It was not particularly wet either.

The CO2 round discharger works by taking a small CO2 cartridge and putting a valve on the top of it. You place the valve with a rubber seal on the cone and open the valve. You used to be able to get them from Cabelas, which is where I bought it 12 years ago. It is powerful enough to send a mini ball that is fully seated out of the barrel with some velocity. Let's just say I wouldn't try to catch it as it came out. If I leveled the musket, I am not sure how far a mini-ball or the rammer would go. But trust me, it will go.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate duck hunting. I feel there should be some alternative. I am not neccessarily against ramming, but I am just saying that rammers can be dangerous.

I discovered the lowering the barrel below the opposing line many years ago. I was doing it at the 140th Perryville when I got yelled at by the opposing line because they thought I was pointing right at them.

Just a few observations.

[reddcorp]

There are some anecotal accounts of ramrods being fired, and the report of an experiment, starting around page 8 of this thread, including posts #76 and 79 and 81:

http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6512&page=8

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

I'm certainly not averse to some degree of risk in this hobby, but again, the majority of reenactors are not trained CW soldiers, even those with prior modern military weapon's training. And no amount of training can undo just one incident where a reenactor gets skewered by a rammer down range. It is rather disconcerting to hear an artillery rammer whizzing overhead. I have had such an experience and would expect a musket rammer's sound to be just as disconcerting. And just how do you insure that the rank and file receive the degree of training that would guarantee no human error?
I don't think you can. So if the proponents of using rammers run events where other reenactors are downrange, let me know where you will be. I'll be elsewhere.

A.W. Redd

[SgtTodd]

Speaking from an experience back around 81ish; ram rods do fly down range. They tend to bend and they make the same sound as they fly by your head as they do if you where to whip one back and forth very fast. Not a sound I care to hear again. It sort of looked like someone threw a big knife, it wasn't till it stuck in a tree 3 feet to my right rear that I saw what it was, and then I had to look at it a second or two to realize what it was (it being a twisted L shaped at that point).

As for flotsam and jetsam that could fall in to the barrel...
Anything that could just fall in will most likely be ballistically inefficient - lots of windage, irregular shape, off-center weight, etc. Aiming high may be just the thing the object needs to drop it right into the ranks on the other side where it would have probably fallen short otherwise. Worst yet, it may have just the elevation it needs to get over to the spectators beyond. (that'll do wonders for the hobby.)

We (reenactors) fire too close, and we fire too fast. I wish the infantry in particular would train to a loading cadence that took the time to draw, ram, and return ramrods into account (we breech-loader types load at the same rate, live or blank) instead of pushing to load and fire as fast as possible and screaming "POUR IT INTO THEM!" at 20 paces.

[TheQM]

There's been a lot of opinion on this thread. I decided to do a rather non-scientific study of the matter at my shooting club.

I set up a target of pure white paper that was 48" high, 17' wide, and set 10" from the ground. My point of aim was 29" from the ground, or the center of the target.

I used a Euroarms Richmond Rifle-Musket, .58 caliber. The weapon was clean at the beginning of the experiment. I fired 60 grains of FFFG black power, using CCF Reenactor Caps. All shooting was done from a bench rest. There was a moderate wind blowing toward the target.

I started shooting at 30 feet, and moved closer in five feet intervals. I fired one unrammed and one rammed charge at every range. I also measured the deviation from level at every range, by measuring from the surface of the bench. I took these measurements from the breach and the front band, since the muzzle extended over the bench.

Here are my results:

At 30' the deviation was one inch from level. No marks on the paper.

At 25' the deviation was 1.5 inches from level. No marks on the paper.

At 20' the deviation was 2.5 inches from level. No marks on the paper.

At 15' the deviation was 3.5 inches from level. There were no marks from the unrammed charge, but two powder hits from the rammed charge, at 36" and 31.5". None cut the paper.

At 10' the deviation was 5.25 inches from level. There were four powder hits from the unrammed charge. High 34", Low 26". There were approximately fifteen powder hits from the rammed charge. High 36", Low 31.5". None cut the paper.

I also shot at 5'. At that range I didn't have enough sand bags to raise the butt stock up high enough, so I just fired from the from the front bench rest. With the unrammed charge I had one misfire. The unrammed charge peppered the paper with at least a hundred powder hits, most of which penetrated the paper. The pattern was approximately 12" high X 9 long". The wadding from the rammed charge blew two big holes in the paper, but the pattern was different, approximately 8" high X 12" long.

Based on my experiment, at thirty feet, it would be perfectly safe to aim roughly thigh high. That actually gives you a ten feet buffer, before even a rammed charge would would be dangerous.

[billwatson2]

OH! Facts! Thank you, Bill and Gerry. :D We're ready for some reality-based decision making. That would be a real innovation in some units, but hey, easy in, easy out: They can go back to doing something silly any time they get tired of doing it right.

I'm ready to have a musket leveled at me. Using rammers, not so much.

There are about three units out there I'd trust to use ramrods; there are about 300 I don't trust, given that they can't even load without the ramrod without wandering all over the company line and clanking muskets due to wrong foot position and everything else, no supervision from noncoms, nothing. A company of 14 men and 13 different positions for present arms, not one of them from Casey: No rammers for those guys, they're sending signals they don't care about doing things right and are led by people who also don't care. Why give them a chance to really mess up by sending a ramrod downrange?

[TB1861]

OH! Facts! Thank you, Bill and Gerry. :D We're ready for some reality-based decision making. That would be a real innovation in some units, but hey, easy in, easy out: They can go back to doing something silly any time they get tired of doing it right.

I'm ready to have a musket leveled at me. Using rammers, not so much.

There are about three units out there I'd trust to use ramrods; there are about 300 I don't trust, given that they can't even load without the ramrod without wandering all over the company line and clanking muskets due to wrong foot position and everything else, no supervision from noncoms, nothing. A company of 14 men and 13 different positions for present arms, not one of them from Casey: No rammers for those guys, they're sending signals they don't care about doing things right and are led by people who also don't care. Why give them a chance to really mess up by sending a ramrod downrange?
I wish there was a gold star smiley, your post deserves one.

[flattop32355]

Artillery uses their rammers for every shot.......why not infantry?????

Because it's a little more difficult to tilt the gun's barrel up and whack the side of the piece to make the powder move down the barrel better. :)

Pete, if every reenactor was you, or the several hundred like you, I'd have no problem with general use of rammers, or hand-to-hand combat scenarios, or any other more accurate things we could be doing in this hobby.

"IF"....And that's the problem. Therein lies the need within the mainstream branch of the hobby (which, unfortunately, also gets lumped in with the bottom feeder branch) to err on the side of caution, even without regard to legal possibilities.

As to whether depressing is more or less safe than elevating (as opposed to duck hunting) the barrel, I'd want to try it out, especially from the rear rank, before considering it as a hobby-wide policy. It sounds like the idea has merit.

[TB1861]

...perhaps it is time to contact those cable guys, The Mythbusters, and ask them to stage the "safe" firing of a rammer with a musket to see if it actually flies downrange, and how far.
You could even volunteer to be their "military consultant" for that particular segment.
Fame and fortune, here comes Mr. Bill!
And we all might finally have a *definite* answer about the question of exactly what happens when a musket fires a rammer.
........
Julio
Ramrod for an Enfield costs $36 plus shipping, send me four or five of them and I will conduct the experiment.

[TheQM]

As to whether depressing is more or less safe than elevating (as opposed to duck hunting) the barrel, I'd want to try it out, especially from the rear rank, before considering it as a hobby-wide policy. It sounds like the idea has merit.

Bernard,

Based on my experiment, at thirty feet, you only have to depress the rifle barrel one inch from level, to aim at your opponent's thighs. Even at fifteen feet, any powder residue would not penetrate a pair of trousers. That's better than getting a grain of powder in the eye.

In regard to the bullets, stones, ramrods, worms, and dead toads that could or have been shot out of reenactor weapons. Far better to get hit in the leg, rather than in the head!

[TB1861]

Ramrod for an Enfield costs $36 plus shipping, send me four or five of them and I will conduct the experiment.
My gunsmith just emailed me and said he would come beat me with one of the ramrods if I did that to my Parker-Hale, said it was very unsafe and could be catastrophically damaging to my musket. He being a real live honest to god trained and experienced gunsmith I have to go with him and withdraw my offer.

[TheQM]

This was the same test using a different weapon, an Armi Sport M-1842, .69 caliber smooth-bore, firing 100 grains of FFFG black power and using CCI Reenactor caps.

Same target: 48" high, 17"wide, and 10" inches from the ground. My aiming point was 29" from the ground, center of mass.

I fired two rounds at each distance, one unrammed, one rammed. I reduced the range at five feet intervals. The rammed rounds were wadded with the cartridge paper. There were no misfires at any range.

Here are the results:

At 30' the deviation was 1.5 inches from level. No marks on the paper

At 25' the deviation was two inches from level. No marks on the paper.

At 20' the deviation was 3.5 inches from level. No marks on the paper.

At 15' the deviation was 4.5 inches from Level. There was one powder hit from the unrammed cartridge at 22 inches that dented the paper. There were four powder hits from the rammed cartridge. One cut the paper. Low 26" & high 40".

At 10' the deviation was 6 inches from level. There were many powder hits from both the unrammed and rammed cartridge. Roughly half cut the paper. There were actually fewer hits from the rammed cartridge. I believe you get better ignition from the rammed cartridge.

I also fired one rammed cartridge from five feet. It blew a 3/4 diameter hole in the paper, 5" high and 2" left of the point of aim. The target was heavily peppered with powder at the point of aim. Needless to say, shooting at someone, at a five foot range, would be a really bad idea!

Based on this experiment, at thirty feet, a .69 caliber smooth-bore, firing a 100 grain powder charge would also be perfectly safe to aim thigh high. It gives you the same ten feet safety buffer as the .58 caliber weapon I tested earlier.

[PMB1861]

Bill, by going ahead and actually doing a detailed and precise test you have put an unrepairable rent in the space time continuum and I would expect Neashaminy State Park to be swallowed whole by Babe the Blue Ox sometime this fall.

That scenario is much more plausible than reenactors accepting that with a little discipline and attention to detail they can behave like the soldier they aspire to portray and actually... GASP... use the rammers on their muskets for the intended purpose without causing permanent damage to each other.

[flattop32355]

That scenario is much more plausible than reenactors accepting that with a little discipline and attention to detail they can behave like the soldier they aspire to portray and actually... GASP... use the rammers on their muskets for the intended purpose without causing permanent damage to each other.

Ah, but we are left with at least two concerns:
1) That of the rammer left in the barrel by, shall we say, excitable folks who forget to take it out before firing (admittedly more of a mainstream event concern), and
2) "Casualties" lying on the ground in front of those firing "low". Does this affect their safety, or is it a non-issue?

[RJSamp]

Ramrod for an Enfield costs $36 plus shipping, send me four or five of them and I will conduct the experiment.


They are 'reusable'....you aren't going to fire a rammer at a brick wall are you?

[TheQM]

That scenario is much more plausible than reenactors accepting that with a little discipline and attention to detail they can behave like the soldier they aspire to portray and actually... GASP... use the rammers on their muskets for the intended purpose without causing permanent damage to each other.

Peter,

My goal was to find the safe distance people could shoot at each other while firing low, rather than aiming at the sky. I really wasn't trying to address the rammer, or no rammer question, although I think my tests show that both rammed and unrammed rounds are equally safe at a thirty foot range.

[TheQM]

2) "Casualties" lying on the ground in front of those firing "low". Does this affect their safety, or is it a non-issue?

Bernie,

I know you own a rifle-musket. Since you have a computer, you likely have a printer and printer paper at your disposal.

Set up a target at thirty feet range, place sheets of computer paper a five foot intervals between you and the target. Place an aiming point on your target 29 inches above the ground. Aim and shoot at your target and then check if any of your sheets of computer paper got hit with powder residue.

We're awaiting your results.

[TB1861]

They are 'reusable'....you aren't going to fire a rammer at a brick wall are you?
They don't survive the trip, I have seen shot rammers. The working end of the ramrod is heaver than the threaded end and it is trying to go first, this sets up a spinning motion much like the line on a weed eater, whichever end hit first stops but the other end is still moving, they usually end up in a V shape. Relic hunters find them like this so physics hasn't changed much in the last 150 years.
And for reasons of safety to people and muskets a ramrod is steel and not very good for the bore when shot even if you disregard the fact that it weighs around 12 ounces. Not sure if you would want to load up a charge then stack 12 balls on top and shoot that puppy, that is about what you would be up to when shooting a ramrod. Your gas seal wouldn't be very tight but it is still more pressure than your barrel has been designed for. This isn't an experiment you would want to conduct. Computer paper and blanks is about all you want to try unless you can find a bugler willing to stand in front of your musket for testing, they have to be of some use and if wearing a musicians jacket then they are even gridded out to a certain extent.

[PMB1861]

Peter,

My goal was to find the safe distance people could shoot at each other while firing low, rather than aiming at the sky. I really wasn't trying to address the rammer, or no rammer question, although I think my tests show that both rammed and unrammed rounds are equally safe at a thirty foot range.

Bill, which was what I read from your well written and documented test. Thank You for doing that.

My over active sarcasm reflex gets tripped by this subject and the absurdity of arguing doing something wrong for 'safety' that when done correctly is not any more 'risky' than the absurd so-called safety 'rule'.

But I am "right and wrong" kind guy.

[Rob Weaver]

This was the same test using a different weapon, an Armi Sport M-1842, .69 caliber smooth-bore, firing 100 grains of FFFG black power and using CCI Reenactor caps.

Same target: 48" high, 17"wide, and 10" inches from the ground. My aiming point was 29" from the ground, center of mass.

I fired two rounds at each distance, one unrammed, one rammed. I reduced the range at five feet intervals. The rammed rounds were wadded with the cartridge paper. There were no misfires at any range.

Here are the results:

At 30' the deviation was 1.5 inches from level. No marks on the paper

At 25' the deviation was two inches from level. No marks on the paper.

At 20' the deviation was 3.5 inches from level. No marks on the paper.

At 15' the deviation was 4.5 inches from Level. There was one powder hit from the unrammed cartridge at 22 inches that dented the paper. There were four powder hits from the rammed cartridge. One cut the paper. Low 26" & high 40".

At 10' the deviation was 6 inches from level. There were many powder hits from both the unrammed and rammed cartridge. Roughly half cut the paper. There were actually fewer hits from the rammed cartridge. I believe you get better ignition from the rammed cartridge.

I also fired one rammed cartridge from five feet. It blew a 3/4 diameter hole in the paper, 5" high and 2" left of the point of aim. The target was heavily peppered with powder at the point of aim. Needless to say, shooting at someone, at a five foot range, would be a really bad idea!

Based on this experiment, at thirty feet, a .69 caliber smooth-bore, firing a 100 grain powder charge would also be perfectly safe to aim thigh high. It gives you the same ten feet safety buffer as the .58 caliber weapon I tested earlier.
This is good hard data, if only a single test, from a respected member of our community. We've got to find a way to get this into print, and overturn the conventional wisdom of risk-avoidance. Turns out our dangerous hobby isn't as dangerous as we thought!?!

[billwatson2]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out at the First Manassas reenactment. According to all the rules, elevated fire won't be an issue. They are using the USV rules as the default rules, with an overlay of event rules. The USV (which has units that obsessively duck hunt) say no firing under 25 yards and elevated fire for anything under 40 yards, which is a 15-yard margin where elevated guns tells the opposing force commander he is approaching the "no fire" zone that group uses. Assuming he read the USV rule book.
The Manassas event rules, however, call for no firing under 40 yards. That ends the "duck hunting" possibilities right there.
It's like the inner five planets lined up to exert a gravitational pull just on musket barrels, pulling them gently down from duck hunting position to level. :D Maybe all the stock footage shooters will get some images they can use from this one, minus all the shots that make it look like the Union army is shooting paratroops over St. Eglise.

[Rob Weaver]

Well now, that does bring up a related issue: realistic firing ranges. If we stay farther apart, we look more realistic and don't need to duck hunt. Has the distance we're willing to close with each other gotten closer in the last 20 years or so? I don't seem to remember as many close firefights when I was a young reenactor back in the late '70s. Was I just really bad at estimatingdistance back then? I remember being surprised at how close units were willing to shoot at each other by the mid-90s.

[RJSamp]

They don't survive the trip, I have seen shot rammers. The working end of the ramrod is heaver than the threaded end and it is trying to go first, this sets up a spinning motion much like the line on a weed eater, whichever end hit first stops but the other end is still moving, they usually end up in a V shape. Relic hunters find them like this so physics hasn't changed much in the last 150 years.
And for reasons of safety to people and muskets a ramrod is steel and not very good for the bore when shot even if you disregard the fact that it weighs around 12 ounces. Not sure if you would want to load up a charge then stack 12 balls on top and shoot that puppy, that is about what you would be up to when shooting a ramrod. Your gas seal wouldn't be very tight but it is still more pressure than your barrel has been designed for. This isn't an experiment you would want to conduct. Computer paper and blanks is about all you want to try unless you can find a bugler willing to stand in front of your musket for testing, they have to be of some use and if wearing a musicians jacket then they are even gridded out to a certain extent.



Thanks, makes sense to me....I could see scratching the bore but didn't comprehend the disformation of the rammer itself. We use the musician's stripes on my cavalry shell jacket for minute sighting adjustments for our sharpshooter's....

[Regular3]

The first Civil War weapon I ever owned was a Navy Arms Zouave, purchased in 1981. Before I ever carried it into a reenactment battle -- yes, rifles were allowed in the days before the 125th -- I took it out to my father-in-law's farm in West Virginia and fired the rammer in a pasture, to see what the effect would be.

It flew about 50 yards, making a distinctive whooshing sound as it went end over end, and buried itself about 3 inches in the ground when it hit. When I pulled it out, it was bent - not quite in the V shape described, but pretty close to an L. I hammered it back straight and was still using it when I sold the weapon a couple of years ago.

That experience led me to never question why, in those heady days of carefree farbism, we pulled our rammers out and left them in our tents before falling in for pre-battle weapons inspection, and anyone found to still have a rammer in its channel was directed to fall out and put the thing away.

But I'll retire from the hobby and no doubt go to my grave wishing that, as Mr. Berezuk said, reenactors would a learn "to behave like the soldier they aspire to portray."

[flattop32355]

But I'll retire from the hobby and no doubt go to my grave wishing that, as Mr. Berezuk said, reenactors would a learn "to behave like the soldier they aspire to portray."

There are events where you can find just that. They occur every year, and they allow chubby old guys like me to take part, so long as we agree to meet the event standards like everyone else. Having done a number of them, I can assure you that those standards are not all that hard to meet, because I do.

[Rob Weaver]

The first Civil War weapon I ever owned was a Navy Arms Zouave, purchased in 1981. Before I ever carried it into a reenactment battle -- yes, rifles were allowed in the days before the 125th -- I took it out to my father-in-law's farm in West Virginia and fired the rammer in a pasture, to see what the effect would be.

It flew about 50 yards, making a distinctive whooshing sound as it went end over end, and buried itself about 3 inches in the ground when it hit. When I pulled it out, it was bent - not quite in the V shape described, but pretty close to an L. I hammered it back straight and was still using it when I sold the weapon a couple of years ago.

That experience led me to never question why, in those heady days of carefree farbism, we pulled our rammers out and left them in our tents before falling in for pre-battle weapons inspection, and anyone found to still have a rammer in its channel was directed to fall out and put the thing away.

But I'll retire from the hobby and no doubt go to my grave wishing that, as Mr. Berezuk said, reenactors would a learn "to behave like the soldier they aspire to portray."
At Yorktown, in 1981, ramrods were both pulled from the muskets and stored in the commander's tent - TAGGED WITH THE OWNER'S NAME. Remember that?

[TB1861]

I remember a time when Blair Taylor and I had been out of camp when the "battle" started so we got a deputy to hold our ramrods for us. We were going through the loading motions and all h**l broke out, the event host was sure we had just hidden them when he came running up yelling at us and stomping all over a yellow jackets nest in his rage. It took a few stings for him to notice he was so mad. The deputy showed a calmer person our ramrods safely locked in the back seat of his car. They took their ramrod in the tents rules very seriously even if they had a very open interpretation as to how Civil War soldiers dressed. Things have improved over the years in some ways not in others.
I think our stepping back and laughing at him didn't help his mood but seeing a man red faced with running across a field and standing in all that poison oak with a rising cloud of mad yellow jackets while we were safe in an open road behind a stone wall knowing full well he was not going to throw us out of an event for having our ram rods locked in a police car just struck us as funny. Guess you had to be there.

[TheQM]

I sincerely hope that some other "Gun Nuts" would do their own tests on blank firing safety. I'm sure I'm not the only guy with access to a rifle range where accurate measurements can be taken.

There have been some questions about the safety of people laying in front of the battle lines. My tests suggest there would be no problem, given the height above the ground where powder residue hit my targets. (The lowest hit was 22" above the ground.) But, that sure isn't proof and other testing needs to be done. Placing sheets of paper at five feet intervals, in front of the target, would answer the question of "casualty's" safety.

I don't feel much like being the only guy crying in the wilderness here.

[billwatson2]

You're not. A lot of guys mumble quietly about some of the stupid things we do, but because it's allegedly in the name of safety, they fear being demonized by the forces of righteous stupidity if they actually speak out in a game-changing way. I know, "stupid" is an ugly word, but yikes already when the actions you are ordered to take to be safe look silly and contribute nothing to safety.
Aiming at the sky is not going to prevent a non-bullet object from hitting opposing forces. Nor is it going to prevent powder from going in their face. It's just an inane thing we do because it's easier to drift with the herd than not.
I assume a certain amount of risk in participating in this hobby, from clumsy people, excited horses and sloppy cooks. It goes with the territory. Actions that reduce the real risk are fine by me. This "aim high" stuff is pointless. I shall quack like a duck every time I see it.
I know some people who enjoy solemn sanctimoniousness will never change even if you do a firing demonstration with paper at measured intervals in their very presence. And I agree more people need to test it for themselves. I acknowledge I was surprised at how short a distance the powder residue actually travels. More people need to see that and have confidence in it.

[TheQM]

[QUOTE=billwatson2;178950] I acknowledge I was surprised at how short a distance the powder residue actually travels. QUOTE]

Bill W.

So was I.

I was really surprised by the results when firing a 100 grains of powder from the M-1842. I was expecting to see a lot more powder residue at longer ranges. Didn't happen.

[mike51tenn]

Sorry, I've been a PD firearms instructor for 17 years and have seen people better trained than your average reenactor make boneheaded mistakes before. I think we've proved that the powder burn problem is not a big of deal as some think, but I don't trust ANYONE ramming a powder charge across a field from me and shooting in my general direction. I have even had the tip come off my rammer after an overzealous inspection once and had nothing to remove but the shaft. Made sure I had a witness to prove that the tip went into my haversack.

It only has to happen once................

[billwatson2]

Mike, I think we're almost all in agreement on the ramrods. Mostly because we've all met the people most likely to shoot one at some point. :)

[SgtTodd]

I've met folks that would shoot one, then grab their neighbor's and shoot his too.

[Artyman]

I agree with you bill! It looks stupid and isn't necessary! The Rev War guys don't aim at the sky, neither do the WWII guys.

Harry

[RJSamp]

You're not. A lot of guys mumble quietly about some of the stupid things we do, but because it's allegedly in the name of safety, they fear being demonized by the forces of righteous stupidity if they actually speak out in a game-changing way. I know, "stupid" is an ugly word, but yikes already when the actions you are ordered to take to be safe look silly and contribute nothing to safety.
Aiming at the sky is not going to prevent a non-bullet object from hitting opposing forces. Nor is it going to prevent powder from going in their face. It's just an inane thing we do because it's easier to drift with the herd than not.
I assume a certain amount of risk in participating in this hobby, from clumsy people, excited horses and sloppy cooks. It goes with the territory. Actions that reduce the real risk are fine by me. This "aim high" stuff is pointless. I shall quack like a duck every time I see it.
I know some people who enjoy solemn sanctimoniousness will never change even if you do a firing demonstration with paper at measured intervals in their very presence. And I agree more people need to test it for themselves. I acknowledge I was surprised at how short a distance the powder residue actually travels. More people need to see that and have confidence in it.

what of the volume cone that pings people's ears in proximity to aimed musketry? I actually thought that was one of the major reasons for firing at high elevation...that and a higher probability that a direct fire accident will hit a human being as opposed to an indirect fire accident.

[Rob Weaver]

I think the detail that the ramrod fails often enough (tip breaks off) that each one of us has ween it at least once is significant. If we were using them upwards to 40 times in an engagement, we'd see even more failures. Until ramrods are made the way they were then, I think we have a valid safety reason to continue to minimize the use of them on the field.
Duck hunting, though, I think is still up for re-evaluation.

[billwatson2]

"what of the volume cone that pings people's ears in proximity to aimed musketry?"

What of it? It's why we have flesh-colored earplugs, isn't it? And the artillery can't aim up and they are shooting 8-16 ounces at a crack.

Don't we all know black powder goes boom! when we sign up for this stuff?

Really, the only way to be utterly safe in a hobby involving firearms, horses and bad cooks is to not participate. We can evaluate the stuff we do on a safety-to-cost or safety-vs-history ratio, and when we factor in stuff like modern ramrods that are prone to breaking off we cross a threshold where the ratio is unfavorable and we need to avoid historic reality at least in part because we're dealing with non-historic, non-dependable replicas. But when we put duck hunting to that same evaluation, it turns out there's no safety gain. I can "not aim directly at someone" by shooting at the ground in front of them or the air over their head, without elevating to 60 degrees from horizontal like we see happening now.

Is elevating in the name of safety the other side of the coin of people with mundane lives convincing themselves that they have such an excitingly dangerous hobby that they have to take these steps to protect themselves from the Xtreme danger all around them? To what extent are we like the people who run in circles, gabbling, shrieking and setting themselves on fire when a thunderstorm approaches, excited beyond all reason because they've convinced themselves real danger is approaching? A hobby where Chicken Little makes up the safety rules? Really? We're aiming at the sky because it's falling?

[RJSamp]

"what of the volume cone that pings people's ears in proximity to aimed musketry?"

What of it? It's why we have flesh-colored earplugs, isn't it? And the artillery can't aim up and they are shooting 8-16 ounces at a crack.

Don't we all know black powder goes boom! when we sign up for this stuff?

Really, the only way to be utterly safe in a hobby involving firearms, horses and bad cooks is to not participate. We can evaluate the stuff we do on a safety-to-cost or safety-vs-history ratio, and when we factor in stuff like modern ramrods that are prone to breaking off we cross a threshold where the ratio is unfavorable and we need to avoid historic reality at least in part because we're dealing with non-historic, non-dependable replicas. But when we put duck hunting to that same evaluation, it turns out there's no safety gain. I can "not aim directly at someone" by shooting at the ground in front of them or the air over their head, without elevating to 60 degrees from horizontal like we see happening now.

Is elevating in the name of safety the other side of the coin of people with mundane lives convincing themselves that they have such an excitingly dangerous hobby that they have to take these steps to protect themselves from the Xtreme danger all around them? To what extent are we like the people who run in circles, gabbling, shrieking and setting themselves on fire when a thunderstorm approaches, excited beyond all reason because they've convinced themselves real danger is approaching? A hobby where Chicken Little makes up the safety rules? Really? We're aiming at the sky because it's falling?

Sorry Bill...you weren't the guy toted away in an ambulance at a Lakewood Forest Preserve (Ill.) reenactment on Father's Day, June 1997 (I was a spectator).

The answer on artillery versus infantry is the artillery pieces are relatively static, know what their cone of danger is (and have had time to step it off), and respect it. The infantry on the other hand is mobile, doesn't know distances once they've moved, definitely don't know distances when they or their targets are moving or have just moved, and unlike crew served weapons are more emotional about 'pouring it on, letting 'em have it, loading faster' etc.

[PMB1861]

The answer on artillery versus infantry is the artillery pieces are relatively static, know what their cone of danger is (and have had time to step it off), and respect it. The infantry on the other hand is mobile, doesn't know distances once they've moved, definitely don't know distances when they or their targets are moving or have just moved, and unlike crew served weapons are more emotional about 'pouring it on, letting 'em have it, loading faster' etc.

OK, I'll bite... Anyone who takes soldiering seriously in either arm can estimate distance and employ their weapons safely. Frankly your statement above is insulting, based off your warped view from the back of some poor horse.

The problem being discussed in this thread (no doubt exacerbated by inane ramblings from the likes of you) is that with the right knowledge and some discipline our hobbies risks are managable. Except for the fact many individuals are too risk-averse, ignorant or hard-headed to do things right and will instead continue doing silly things no matter what good information is spoon fed to them.

Pardon the interruption, we know return to our regularly scheduled bloviating.

[Artyman]

Peter, Peter! RJ is actually pretty much right on the mark. I've commanded both artillery and infantry in the field and with the big guns we always had time to set our ranges and even put out markers. But, the few times I got fired on a bit too close was always by infantry and never by some crew rolling a cannon up too close! I agree that infantry types can judge distance as well as anyone else, but lets face it, knowing the distance and being limited by it are two different things.

Some guys with revolvers are even worse!

Harry

[billwatson2]

You lost me, RJ. Someone was injured by a noise?

[billwatson2]

"The problem being discussed in this thread (no doubt exacerbated by inane ramblings from the likes of you) is that with the right knowledge and some discipline our hobbies risks are managable. Except for the fact many individuals are too risk-averse, ignorant or hard-headed to do things right and will instead continue doing silly things no matter what good information is spoon fed to them."

Thank you, Pete, that even helped me remember what this thread was about. :)

[huntdaw]

Was perusing and saw this thread was still going and I've got to say that I'm really surprised this thread has gone on for 10 pages and almost 200 posts. Have we not covered this sufficiently yet?

[billwatson2]

Michael, you're assuming there's a destination. It's just a journey.

[FloridaHoosier]

This thread has gone on so long because each time the plug was about to be pulled, another nugget of safety or a refresher in good practices came about. There was some debate a couple of times, but we are trying to be kinder and gentler but at the same time keep a point. It is now at that point where the pieces have been said and we're spinning. Thanks for most of us keeping to that point, if not but for a few tangents here and there.