Talk:Baker rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Bore size?

Nitpicking, maybe, but...the Baker's bore might be .625, but isn't the cal actually .58 or .59? Trekphiler 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Man, this page is a mess. I'll try and fix the rest of it later.

The link to the "Rifleman Thomas Plunkett: 'A Pattern for the Battalion.' is broken

The factoid saying that the Baker rifle fires 2 to 3 rounds per minute is downright wrong. This is a musket's rate of fire, not a Baker rifle. While the musket could easily be loaded within a 20 second timeframe by a well-drilled soldier, the Baker rifle required its ball ammunition to be wrapped in a leather patch so that it would grip the rfles within the bore that gave it its famed accuracy. However, in more hectic fights, the leather patch might be foregone in favour of a reload speed closer to that of the standard musket, but then its accuracy would only be a slight improvement of a musket's accuracy.

If the BR could hit at 600-800 yards, how can it be said that a musket's range is much farther? Muskets aren't even reliably lethal at beyond 300 yards. ATK102587 011:51, 21 June 2006 (EST)

Wel as to having to grease wrap the ball and use powder horns to prime the weapon was true at an early stage but they were later loaded by means of a paper cartridge the same as a Musket and as to the range, I believe that the range given for the musket is the range at which it can still kill whereas the range for the rifle is the range at which it can accurately hit a target. This is logical as muskets were used primarily in vollies thus the accurate range is of little matter as to the range at which it can be lethal.