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.