Usually at least once a book so far it’s mentioned that it’s necessary to aim low due to the recoil of the muskets/pistols etc. As far as I know this makes no sense, as the recoil is felt after the bullet leaves the gun as far as I know. I’m not an expert in guns/ballistics but I’ve fired (modern) guns a few times.
I’m assuming this is just wrong in the books, but given the general accuracy (or at least detail, how would I know what’s accurate) of the Sharpe novels, I’m wondering if anyone can confirm this is just a misunderstanding by the author of how recoil works or if there is actually something different about old guns that makes this true.
Edit: there may be other reasons to aim low in battle, which I think have been mentioned in the books, and any comments on that are welcome. But I’m specifically wondering about the role of recoil since that has been specifically mentioned by Cornwell and what conflicts with my knowledge.
The rear sight for the first model of the Baker rifle was sighted for 200 yards. Which means, that if anyone was shooting at ranges under that, they'd have to aim low, because the rifle would be shooting higher than the sights indicated. At 200 yards the ball would be dropping a few feet, so if the sights were compensated for that, shooting at a close target would indeed require aiming pretty low.
Recoil was not a problem for accuracy. In simple Newtonian physics of action-reaction, the weight of the bullet times the acceleration moving forwards was equal to the weight times acceleration of the rifle going backwards. So, as the bullet was a bit over an ounce[ EDIT .8 ounce] , but the rifle was 9 pounds, the ball had left the barrel by the time the gun really began to move.