Mdthbs

What would be the effect of a giant magical fireball burning in the ocean?

Which CentOS 7 package provides the "boot" manpage?

How do I remove 'None' items from the end of a list in Python

Why is Mars cold?

Did Terry Pratchett ever explain the inspiration behind the Luggage?

Did it take 3 minutes to reload a musket when the second amendment to the US constitution was ratified?

How does Data know about his off switch?

Should I trust the p value in statistical testings

Why are second inversion triads considered less consonant than first inversion triads?

How many wires can safely be secured in a Marrette 33 wire nut?

How to deal with people whose priority is to not get blamed?

Get injured / Get increased

Car as a good investment

Does obfuscation give any measurable security benefit?

Company indirectly discriminating against introverts, specifically INTJ

How can you tell apart the pronounciation at the end between the "meine" and "meiner" in the daily spoken situation?

Is it safe to pay bills over satellite internet?

Is oxygen above the critical point always supercritical fluid? Would it still appear to roughly follow the ideal gas law?

Code Golf Measurer © 2019

Why do Computer Science degrees contain a high proportion of mathematics?

Does immunity to fear prevent a mummy's Dreadful Glare from paralyzing a character?

Hebrew Vowels change the word

Does any politician honestly want a No Deal Brexit?

Digit Date Range

Did it take 3 minutes to reload a musket when the second amendment to the US constitution was ratified?

U.S. weapon restrictions during 19th centuryWhen did blade fuller appear?Have US troops ever been lawfully quartered in private homes during wartime under the Third Amendment?How long did it take to make a 16th Century arrow?When did hand cannons become handguns?Why was the first production PzKpfw V (Panther) called the Ausf.D, and the second production version called the Ausf.A?Was the “natural born citizen” requirement for the President inserted into the US Constitution by Alexander Hamilton's enemies?US Citizenship Prior to the 14th AmendmentHas chattel slavery ever been used as a criminal punishment in the USA since the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment?

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}

6

The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:

In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.

When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.

Full discussion

Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?

weapons us-constitution

share|improve this question

edited 10 hours ago

uhoh

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
  
  – Ring
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

6

The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:

In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.

When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.

Full discussion

Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?

weapons us-constitution

share|improve this question

edited 10 hours ago

uhoh

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Honestly, I'd push back against the implicit assumption in Mr. O'Rourke's statement that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted the same way in 1787 as it is today, and only the weapons have changed. That's just flat out wrong, and you aren't going to make any good historical conclusions by following that incorrect reasoning to its conclusion. When it was written, the Bill of Rights only applied to Congress, not states or cities. We have a whole question about this.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  4
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  It didn't even take that long to load and fire a cannon, let alone a musket.
  
  – Ring
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment
 | 

The NPR News podcast and video Beto O'Rourke Wants To Ban, Confiscate Some Guns. Texas Voters Want Details (about 6.5 minutes long) contains the following assertion by Congressman O'Rourke:

In under three minutes, in a Walmart in El Paso Texas, 22 people were killed.

When the second amendment was adopted and ratified, it took three minutes to reload your musket.

Full discussion

Question: Did it in fact take something like three minutes to reload muskets when the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified? Is a "three minute musket" representative of the best military individual firearm of the day for warfare?

weapons us-constitution

share|improve this question

edited 10 hours ago

uhoh

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

share|improve this question

edited 10 hours ago

uhoh

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

share|improve this question

edited 10 hours ago

uhoh

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

asked 10 hours ago

uhohuhoh

66944 silver badges1515 bronze badges

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

16

No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.

---

In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:

"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."

• p285

---

By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:

“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."

• ibid

Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:

“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”

so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.

---

Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.

share|improve this answer

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
  
  – sempaiscuba♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
  
  – C Monsour
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @sempaiscuba: The colonials, or at least the farmers & frontiersmen among them, were probably much better (and had better weapons, like the Kentucky rifle) than the British. They often could use aimed fire (and at longer distances) rather than volley fire.
  
  – jamesqf
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f54949%2fdid-it-take-3-minutes-to-reload-a-musket-when-the-second-amendment-to-the-us-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

16

No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.

---

In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:

"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."

• p285

---

By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:

“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."

• ibid

Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:

“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”

so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.

---

Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.

share|improve this answer

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
  
  – sempaiscuba♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
  
  – C Monsour
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @sempaiscuba: The colonials, or at least the farmers & frontiersmen among them, were probably much better (and had better weapons, like the Kentucky rifle) than the British. They often could use aimed fire (and at longer distances) rather than volley fire.
  
  – jamesqf
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

16

No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.

---

In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:

"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."

• p285

---

By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:

“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."

• ibid

Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:

“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”

so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.

---

Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.

share|improve this answer

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Good info. I could quibble that its relating to European Army regulars (with presumably pretty up-to-date equipment), and not colonial militias using their own weaponry, but since this entire argument started with the historical equivalent of "Let 1 = 0...", I'm not going to bother quibbling details.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @T.E.D. I suspect that colonial militias probably weren't that far behind the European Army regulars in the late eighteenth century. If they really were taking three minutes to reload their muskets, I rather suspect that the outcome of the Revolutionary War might have been very different! ;-)
  
  – sempaiscuba♦
  8 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  What I always heard was that the colonial militia at Lexington & Concord was armed mostly with matchlocks and rifled muskets meant for hunting, and weren't really trained for massing together and performing volleys. That was 1774 though, not 1787. Again, we've already marched into invalid rhetorical territory here by pretending that amendment meant the same thing 238 years ago that the SCOTUS decided it meant in 2008, so I'm not going to bother picking a hill in it to die on.
  
  – T.E.D.♦
  8 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @T.E.D. The 2nd amendment meant nothing 238 years ago as it had not even been drafted yet.
  
  – C Monsour
  6 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @sempaiscuba: The colonials, or at least the farmers & frontiersmen among them, were probably much better (and had better weapons, like the Kentucky rifle) than the British. They often could use aimed fire (and at longer distances) rather than volley fire.
  
  – jamesqf
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 1 more comment

No. The rate of fire of competent musketeers was considerably greater than one round every three minutes when the Second Amendment was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century.

---

In his book The Dawn of Modern Warfare, Hans Delbruck included a section titled 'Rapidity of fire in the eighteenth century'. He states that:

"... a competent musketeer could load without command four or five times in a minute, and the platoon could fire five salvos on command in two minutes, and this was increased to almost three per minute."

• p285

---

By 1779 in Europe, a regulation required recruits to practice loading and firing with powder:

“... daily and be continued until the new men could fire four times in a minute."

• ibid

Although Delbruck went on to observe that Berenhorst wrote:

“at least 15 seconds were needed to load and fire with ball cartridges”

so it would have been impossible to get off a full four shots in a minute.

---

Nevertheless, a firing rate in excess of three shots per minute was certainly perfectly possible with contemporary muskets in the late eighteenth century.

share|improve this answer

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges

share|improve this answer

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

edited 10 hours ago

Santiago

3,7611111 silver badges2121 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges

answered 10 hours ago

sempaiscuba♦sempaiscuba

63k88 gold badges225225 silver badges291291 bronze badges