Damage difference between "Minnet Ball" and standard musketball?

[agrippamaxentius]

Hello everyone, for a long time ive been told that the "Minnet" ball is far more deadly than a standard musket ball. I understand the shape is conical, and may make for better penetration but is a minnet ball really deadlier than a musket ball? If so, what makes this the case? Is it more likely to lead to amputations? Appreciate the feedback!

[MikeGER]

with the "Minnet" ball it was possible to load a muzzle-loading weapon that also had a rifling
when fired the "Minnet" bullets tail expanded into the barrel and sealed it off much better then a usual ball in an older smooth bore muzzle loader resulting in a higher muzzle-veleocity = more damage to the target at the same range 
(in addition same damage but at longer ranges now possible too and with more precision which leads to more 'targets' hit in a battle overall ...so an engagement with troops that had Minnet ball rifles was overall more bloodier - more wounded troops  and a bunch of those wounded with heavier wounds)

   

[agrippamaxentius]

with the "Minnet" ball it was possible to load a muzzle-loading weapon that also had a rifling
when fired the "Minnet" bullets tail expanded into the barrel and sealed it off much better then a usual ball in an older smooth bore muzzle loader resulting in a higher muzzle-veleocity = more damage to the target at the same range 
(in addition same damage but at longer ranges now possible too and with more precision which leads to more 'targets' hit in a battle overall ...so an engagement with troops that had Minnet ball rifles was overall more bloodier - more wounded troops  and a bunch of those wounded with heavier wounds)

Thanks Mike! So is it safe to say if a musket ball struck you in the arm, leg etc there would be less of a chance for amputation/serious injury than a minnet ball? Just an assumption but im guessing the musket ball was great for shattering bone, but perhaps wouldn't penetrate on every shot? My knowledge of guns is practically non existent xD.

[Jack Nastyface]

Hey Agrippa,
As MikeGER suggests, the shape of the lighter Minie ball (properly spelled with an acute accent on the final "e") really wasn't the reason why it was deadly...it was the overall longer effective range, faster reload time, and improved accuracy.  Unrifled muskets were very inaccurate (you were unlikely to hit what you were aiming at distances over maybe 75 yards) and the round ball will suffers diminished speed over longer (greater that 100 yards) distances.
It really doesn't take a lot of energy to penetrate through a uniform, skin and muscle.  But, because musket and Minie balls were made of lead, they tended to deform and cause great damage if they hit bone.  However, as MikeGER suggests, the higher velocity and accuracy of the civil war rifle meant that you could put enemy troops under effective fire for a longer period of time, and at a greater distance.

[agrippamaxentius]

Hey Agrippa,
As MikeGER suggests, the shape of the lighter Minie ball (properly spelled with an acute accent on the final "e") really wasn't the reason why it was deadly...it was the overall longer effective range, faster reload time, and improved accuracy.  Unrifled muskets were very inaccurate (you were unlikely to hit what you were aiming at distances over maybe 75 yards) and the round ball will suffers diminished speed over longer (greater that 100 yards) distances.
It really doesn't take a lot of energy to penetrate through a uniform, skin and muscle.  But, because musket and Minie balls were made of lead, they tended to deform and cause great damage if they hit bone.  However, as MikeGER suggests, the higher velocity and accuracy of the civil war rifle meant that you could put enemy troops under effective fire for a longer period of time, and at a greater distance.

Thanks for clarifying Jack! So in other words you are screwed with either, but a minnet ball is likelier to reach its target accurately and at distance. Ouch