Guys, we must have reading different books. In the numerous ones i came across, the major conclusion is that shot spread of blunderbusses is quoted as being a myth.
I understand this may not be a only black & white situation and indeed a controversial subject but ...
Let us pick a couple extracts that are at hand ...
From Melvin Fanagan, called Myths of the Blunderbuss:
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, added to the blunderbuss’ description: “The National Rifle Association carried out some experiments with antique blunderbusses in the 1960s and discovered that the flared barrel had no effect on the spread of shot; shot did spread as in any other shotgun, but not to the same extent” .
Another:
“Even after he has become a collector and student of old weapons, this individual will probably continue to believe that the spread of shot from a blunderbuss is directly related to the shape and flare of the muzzle.”
Yet another:
“In a blunderbuss, the breech caliber is the critical one. It determines the space where the powder and balls are confined. Despite the flare of the muzzle, the breech calibers of most blunderbusses are roughly comparable with contemporary muskets. Most .67 caliber muskets of the period, when firing buckshot loads, used about 12 balls with powder charges of 120 grains.
Muskets of .75 caliber fired slightly bigger charges, usually 15 balls and 130 0r 140 grains of powder.”
Peterson’s evaluation of the shot patterns was, “In view of these tests, it seems safe to state that the bell of the blunderbuss had very little effect on the dispersion of the shot. It quite possibly was useful when loading a handful of small balls in action or on a moving coach; and it may have had a tremendous psychological effect on those who found one pointing their way, but that was about all.”
|