Yes it would.
An obsolete short musket with a flared muzzle used to scatter shot at a short range
No. A musket is a smooth-bore, muzzel loading weapon designed to fire a single ball. A shotgun is designed to fire a several pieces of smaller shot in a single load.
They were chasing on foot, and killing by musket shot, a fleeing deer.
I can not say it would be "Bad" to hunt fowl with a musket, it would be a very long day if it were loaded with single ball. If loaded with shot and wad and a smooth bore it would differ little from a purpose built fowler other than weight. I have hunted turkey, dove and squirrel over the years with a Charleville musket loaded with shot and had no problems at all.
The Saber was defiantly a faster more agile weapon but it was not long ranged like the Musket, there is also the accuracy factor when you shoot a musket straight it is most likely to hit the floor or next to where you shot. If you miss with the Musket and the other person had a Saber you would die or be harshly injured. My choice would be the Saber for speed, accuracy, and agility.
A smooth bored musket is one weapon. A shot gun is another. Early cannons were unrifled.
They are both firearms. However, they can be different as far as loading procudures go
No musket does not have an antonym
Musket or Musket or maybe a Musket.:D
Unknown to this day, but recently I read a plausible theory about why the shot may have been fired. There was a tavern nearby, and it was against the rules to bring a loaded musket inside. The only way to unload a musket was to fire it. Someone may have stepped inside for a drink, firing his musket in the air first. I think it unlikely that the British would have fired first without orders, but some of the Colonials may have panicked and fired when they heard the first shot.
yes peter lalor got shot in the shoulder no blood could get through so they amputated it.