I think this pretty much shows that you got the point and that a bullet in 2022 is nowhere near the same thing it was in 1791...
this is always so cute. especially when it's a gravy seal like you pulling it. I mean, for all I support effective firearm restrictions I probably have just as much if not more experience than your twinkie ass simply from the era I grew up in (before we revised our regs), five years of cadet instruction, and a couple seasons of winter biathlon...
Nnnnnot really. Even in the late 1700s there were rifles, tho they were much less common and much more expensive than muskets. Still muzzle loaded. But the projectile was a recognizable "bullet" shape, not the round(ish) musket ball. Again, don't conflate "bullet" with "cartridge."
I'm not conflating them but using the common understanding of the term-especially here as as you point out, it's still a muzzle loading, paper cartridge requiring multiple actions of the user that might have a rate of fire of 3-4/minute vs 3-400/minute. I've always heard them referred to as balls or rounds (also used for the full assemblage of a modern cartridge)-never a musket "bullet"-even on the period drill team when I was at the academy and carting around an 1850s pattern Enfield. And can't really find evidence for the shape being used outside of experimentation prior to the 1840s nor the jacketed cartridge before the 1880s. Still, I'll take your opinions on the subject a hell of a lot more seriously than those of certain other posters
and people wonder why women are not as into porn as men are. Put Ethan Peck in there and then we'll talk.