I will post you some info taken from the RECORDS OF THE FIRINGS, AND OPINIONS OF THE BOARD ASSEMBLED AT THE WASHINGTON ARSENAL FOR THE TRIAL OF SMALL ARMS ACCORDING TO SPECIAL ORDER NO 23 WAR DEPARTMENT, FEBRUARY 1, 1860, when I get a minute. The men that fired buck and ball had no more training on that weapon, than the men that fired the rifled musket. Not one battle in the civil war early or late was buck and ball used more than any other ammo. Even when .69 caliber smooth-bores were used on the battlefield most of the time they fired a single round ball. Firing a shot of buck and ball versus a single round ball and you can throw trajectory out the window for the buck and ball. The point you are missing is that after a 100 yards the .31 caliber bucks would probably not break the skin. The speed of buck and ball was slower than the speed of a single .69 caliber round ball. Also buck and ball is a nuisance and slower to load. Buck and ball at Shiloh 62, Antietam 62, but as the war went on less and less buck and ball was used. In 1864-65 in a few close up battles the buck and ball did really well, but this was not the norm.