What you call "artifical" from my point of view is "natural". My friend (it's not sarcasm! ), I know that all these tests tell us NOTHING about musketry in a battle. A common criticism of Scharnhorst's tests is that his tests were not conducted under anything like battlefield conditions, thus the accuracy ratings are artificially high. Of course I know about the Scharnhorst tests.Īt 300m, Scharnhorst found the muskets hit cavalry-sized targets 6.5% of the time. Gentlemen, what can we conclude from that?That Napoleon was an idiot? Same with Nelson? And that they havent played CS Source enough? Well, that's quite something, isn't it? I think it's very interesting. Thank you very much for your support, Erunion Telcontar! Gentlemen, what can we conclude from that? The results of this experiment are shown below: Each group fired 1,000 rounds against a cavalry target. Infantrymen in the aiming group were encouraged to aim their muskets as hunters would instead of just pointing it roughly ahead and pulling the trigger. "Another experiment described by Mueller (1811) involved the use of aiming versus no aiming. Also, only the fastest loaders have time to aim, mostly they just had time to raise their guns before they were ordered to fire.