In May 1861, as the “Rebellion” was heating up, the Burlington Times of Burlington, Daily Vermont, published some instructive information on military small arms training. The article correctly asserted that: “Proficiency in the use of the rifle can only be acquired by systematic and diligent practice.”
The paper went on to correctly note that such proficiency was “not ordinarily found in regiments raised in our great cities, with men who have never handled a gun.” The Daily Times praised recruits from rural areas (like Vermont), who “from the daily use of the rifle, knew its power” And were, therefore, “invincible.”
To be kind, the paper overestimated the marksmanship skills of rural folks, but the writer realized not only that the Union army needed to have marksmanship “schools of practice,” established, but was well aware of the existence of such “schools of practice” established in the training curriculums of European armies. Cited were the French marksmanship schools at “Vincennes, Toulouse, St. Omer and Grenoble, where officers and men well instructed in the principles of firing are sent out into the army at large and impart to it the same system and efficiency.” The British army had created a similar program.
The writer went on to note the successful use of the rifle musket in various conflicts of the 1850s, including General
12 Issues/Year
online at
Sir Henry Havelock, “whose Enfield armed men mowed down whole columns of insurgents with Minie rifles” during the Sepoy Rebellion in India, and the French and Piedmontese armies that “wreaked dreadful havoc on the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino.”
While the writer’s guess that the range of the rifle musket would make artillery obsolete would never prove correct, his encouragement of marksmanship training with the new weapons was correct, and largely ignored. Both armies apparently decided that there were other training priorities. There were exceptions during the conflict, most notably Confederate General Patrick Cleburne’s course of instruction for his men based on his own experience in the British army and the training of the Army of Northern Virginia’s special sharpshooter companies.
The Army of the Potomac was less assiduous. Berdan’s Sharpshooter regiments depended on the skills acquired in prewar civilian competition, but in the wake of Gettysburg the army decided to implement marksmanship training, although it did not even begin to approach European standards. In spring 1864, all units were supposed to train their members in shooting. The course involved bringing a regiment out to shoot at 50, 100, or 200 yards at a large target. Each man fired five to ten rounds.
The lack of shooting skills evidenced among soldiers during the Civil War resulted in a serious reappraisal in the postwar army, where marksmanship was stressed in the 1870s and 1880s.
It seems that every time there is a mass shooting in some state, laws are proposed in other states, particularly my New Jersey, to restrict legal gun ownership by the state’s governor and/or members of the legislature. This is especially true in an election year. Of course, today, as always, this automatic response often has included legislation that has been
by Joe Bilby
rejected in the past. This time around, New Jersey Governor Murphy has resurrected a plethora of these proposed laws, even though our current firearms regulations are some of the most restrictive in the United States.
Murphy said at the time he endorsed the laws and that they were “perhaps the most sweeping gun violence prevention package in the history of our nation.” Do these laws prevent gun violence? Hardly. Most firearms, more than 80%, are handguns used in crimes and gang feuds in New Jersey. They are smuggled into the Garden State from states with minimal gun laws.
Perhaps the most egregious of these proposed laws for black powder shooters and collectors is the “50 Caliber Ban,” crafted by people who know next to nothing about firearms history and current historical marksmanship competitions, reenactments, or antique gun collecting. This legislation was originally proposed back when heavy sniper type rifles were introduced by small manufacturers and chambered for the .50 caliber machine gun cartridge. To my knowledge, none of these bulky, heavy, and expensive firearms has ever been used in a liquor store holdup, gang feud, lunatic murder rampage, or other crime. Although there may be a few legally purchased ones in our state, and I see no need to penalize law abiding shooters with such a ban.
Having said that, the proposed law could create a disaster in the historical firearms original and reproduction fields. Let us look at which guns might be impacted. Revolutionary War era original and reproduction flintlocks are usually .69 or .75 caliber. Civil War and earlier rifles and muskets are .54, .58, and .69 caliber; Spencer repeating rifles and carbines used in the War are .50 caliber, as are most carbines of the era. Post-Civil War breechloading metallic cartridge rifles and carbines were originally manufactured in .50 caliber. The law could be a nightmare for historical arms collectors and those who target shoot and participate in historical reenactments with antique and reproduction weapons. I have already written the governor’s office on this matter, and I suggest that everyone should do the same.
