More below:

>>>Yes you are right about muzzle velocity, >>>

I emailed Joe Bilby, noted expert on Civil War era arms and ordnance, and he told me that buck and ball and round ball rounds had very similar muzzle velocities, both being higher a few hundred FPS than minie rounds. The powder charge for the rifle bullets was 60 grains whereas it was 100 grains for round ball and buck and ball. Tied in with the larger powder load was the fact that the ball was lighter than the minie bullet was thus the higher speed out of the barrel. This ties into your point below.

(BTW - Bilby has live shot buck and ball and he said the the buckshot dropped off at 75 yards but the ball kept going for a good bit more. This was due to lack of mass for the buckshot for the powder to propel any further.)

>>>>the .69 caliber round ball wins the drag race (speed just out of the barrel). What I'm reading is the Minie' ball hits the target down range (?100 yards ?) at a higher velocity than the round ball. Is this right or wrong?>>>>

Correct to a point. It might be better to state that the minie round sheds velocity at a slower rate as no bullet fired can speed up faster than its initial muzzle velocity, which would defy laws of physics (unless you put a small rocket on it of course). Same with a pitched baseball heading towards the plate and batter - it too sheds velocity the further it goes. This has to due with aerodynamic shapes and the weight of the rounds compared as mentioned above. The round ball sheds speed faster due to poor aerodynamics (friction with the air) while the pointed minie round will go further thanks to a better shape even with the slower muzzle velocity (less friction with the air).

>>>A confederate surgeon did a study on this in comparing smoothbore wounds to Minie' ball wounds in 1864. He looks like he's comparing shape of the bullets and their speed, round balls (slower) and Minie' balls (faster). He describes the effect of both on bone and tries to come up with a plan to treat both wounds. >>>>

I think where this surgeon was going was this - the minie rounds, being soft lead, tended to flatten out when hitting bone thus causing massive bone damage (leading to loads of amputations). I don't think the round balls flattened out nearly as much. Again, the speed which the round hits a man will depend on the type of round and how far he is from the muzzle of the weapon shooting at him.

There was a show several years ago (either History Channel or Military Channel) that was about Antietam. They did this forensic style of analysis of the battle based on the weapons there. While most of them were still smoothbores, the mine rifles were also on the field. They shot round balls and I think buck and ball into a thick clear gellatin block and did the same with the minie rounds. The shock of the minie rounds flattening out caused more "body" damage to the gellatin block and it was very noticeable. So imagine what it did to human bodies and bones.

I would be very interested to know of where I can see this surgeon's report so I can read it and file it for reference. If you could pass that along I would be much obliged. Since you seem to be really into weapons and related I really think you would enjoy reading the three books that I mentioned to you. They are some of the best Civil War books I have ever read for they challenged preconceived notions on the true effectiveness of the rifles. I am also a Napoleonic Wars (and Frederick the Great and Rev War) historian so my experience in the musket era goes well back before the Civil War with weapons technology, doctrine, training and more (it actually starts with Marlborough in the late 17th/early 18th Century). This, in particular the Napoleonic Wars, gives me a huge body of experience to draw from that the vast majority of Civil War historians ignore - and yet the Civil War was very much the last of the Napoleonic Wars. That, to me, is a real pity. I have learned more about the Civil War by studying the Napoleonic Wars than just reading the Civil War. Since all military history is linear, it just makes sense to do it this way. That's how I know how bloody the Napoleonic Wars were.

Related to this, if you check out Civil War newspapers, north and south, after the Battle of Shiloh, you will see a current that runs through them both. The massive casualties of that battle shocked both sides and served notice that this was going to be a long war indeed. The newspapers were also shocked and comparisons to Napoleonic battles and casualty rates start showing up in print - Borodino, Leipzig, Waterloo, Eylau, Friedland, etc. This is why I still study the Napoleonic Wars - in addition to his being about the best military commander ever.

Merry Christmas.

greg Biggs