AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Rkymtn57 on September 14, 2013, 03:26:07 AM
-
Hope this subject hasnt been beaten to death but....
Id love to hear your thoughts and beliefs on long distance (200 - 300 yd.) shooting
because my grandfather was at Saratoga with Timothy Murphy.
Also love the historical aspects of it , their lifestyles , components , conditions of their rifles ?
With all the technicalities im learning about , its tough to see them doing it then ?
Hope you'll join in. DD
-
I think that when you talk about men who used the rifle every day/all day a 300 yd. shot is absolutly posible. I cant do it any more but I have a few round ball guns that you could garantee hits at 200 and that is by people who only use the rifle as a hoby.
-
It is possible if you have practiced some. Once at Fort Toulouse in Alabama we shot at a metal plate that was hung against a cut bank across the Coosa river. Had to be 200yds. After shooting a few times to see the water splashes we learned how high up the bank to hold and offhand hits were fairly regular. The visitors were really impressed by the "old timey" rifles. Of course we acted like we did it all the time. ;D
-
EC121: You just rang my bell (no pun intended)...you reminded me of the time when we were shooting for fun across the Colorado River out in the country in the early 60"s....it was an easy 150-200 yards....my .50 cal Penn. kept kerplunking in the river and I kept raising the muzzle until finally hitting a big rock on the other side...the final kerplunk was at the opposite waters edge and I was a good 2 feet above the rock before I hit it. A great lesson in elevation !
-
It's quite wonderful and satisfying how consistent you can get, if you practice those long shots.
-
because my grandfather was at Saratoga with Timothy Murphy.
If you are 80 years old and your father was 80 years old when you where born, and his father was 80 years old when he born,,
Your grand father could have been 4 when the battle you speak of was in progress.
-
President John Tyler, born 1790 still has 2 grandsons alive. I think they are about 80. They were all late bloomers.
-
Excuse me ....Thomas Dickerson 1757....He was 19 when he enlisted Aug. 9th. 1776 at Ft. Pitt.
Fought at Bound Brook before being transferred to Morgans Rifles and the 8 th. Pa. reg.
Then wintered at Valley Forge.
Why don't check the muster rolls on the Saratoga Battlefield website.
Or perhaps you need a copy of his pension or maybe if you read much , you have
heard of Brady's Rangers whom is two brothers Kinser and Vachel spied and scouted for
Out of Fort Henry ( Wheeling).
Just a polite question would have been fine before you called me a liar !
The question was about long distance shooting and accuracy.
DD
-
Here ya go........5th. GG. :)
-
its very possible! we shoot at a bucket size plate at 200 meters (230 yds?) and we have guys hitting that. and those who miss it ain't that far from hitting it. the guys look forward to shooting it. verrrrry possible
-
When you said " your Grandfather .." I took it for granted that there were some " Great G. missing " I refer to my great Uncle as just " my Uncle " all the time ;D
We used to have a formal target match down in Kingston called " Kingfest" and these matches were at 100 and 200 yards. All round ball rifles, and the scores at 200 yds were pretty darn good. I took my rear site and in my eye imagined a set amount of space above it for the front site. If you shoot a smoothbore, you'll get the idea.
Drift from the wind is more of an issue, but the question re how accurate .....pretty darn accurate. I would not want to put money on a bet that some in our club couldn't hit a man sized target at 200 or 300 yds. I'd lose.
-
I agree with you Bob , I also like to add in the factors of
Rusty pitted barrels , loosely woven linen patching , bears grease and powder of the times.
I guess it all boils down to familiarity with your weapon thru daily use.
Fascinating to me ! Thanks
-
Just to give y'all an idea as to how good you can get with a muzzleloader, by just shooting a lot, heres my story.
I started this hobby when I was in my mid twenties. That was back when everything worked, nothing shook, or trembled, and I had eyes like an eagle. I bought two rifle kits, from Dixie Gun Works, with the first Christmas bonus I ever got from an employer. The flinter was just what you'd expect for $65.00, but the CVA mountain rifle kit was pretty good. I literally shot it every day. My father had a pear ranch, that was up against the foot hills, that was teaming with jack rabbits, and ground squirrels, both detrimental to pear trees. I hunted varmints after work every evening ( this was long before cable TV, and Monday night football). The best shot I ever made on varmints was a 210 pace head shot on a ground squirrel standing on top of a smudge pot. The second rendezvous I attended I got into a long gong shoot off elimination, that required the shooters that hit, to back up ten yards, until all but one was eliminated. The usable range was 300 yards, the target was an eighteen inch metal disc. At 300 yards there was still four of us int the game. The range officer made us make our next shot standing on one foot. One shooter missed, one shooter with a GRRW Leman blew the drum out of his gun, and two of us hit the target. After the drum incident the range officer made the two of us stand on one foot, and reduce our charges to 75 grains of powder. I hit a foot low. The other guy shot second, and held a little higher, and rung the gong. Practice, practice, practice. Nuff Sed!!!
Hungry Horse
-
Very cool Hungry !
-
Rocky;
I'm very interested in your family connection with the American rebels. My mothers family have been in the new world since the King didn't like their refusal to change religions, and got tired of staking them in the Irish surf. I'm sure they were involved in the revolution, and possible the F&I war as well. I just haven't been able to find that elusive nugget of information. They were in the Carolinas, and possible Virginia.
A recent article in the American Rifleman about a rifleman in Daniel Morgan's rifle corp, named Stark Brown, inspired me to start the search all over again. My families earliest relative of record in North Carolina, is Daniel Morgan Brown, who would have been too young to serve in the Continental Army, but may have been a relative of one or more that did serve. TTYL.
Hungry Horse
-
I read tons of stuff Hungry and I will keep it in mind. I can't get enough of the history.
If you like to read , learn to use "books google " and search for any topics that interest you .
All the older stuff is free to download.
I have lots of books saved but just enjoyed "Frontier Advance on the Upper Ohio"
Now reading "Frontier Retreat on the Upper Ohio" all free reads.
I would be glad to help you Hungry , try typing in his name and a key work like Rev. War , or Colonial Militias , diff. Things and see what pops up on Google.
DD
-
Hope this subject hasnt been beaten to death but....
Id love to hear your thoughts and beliefs on long distance (200 - 300 yd.) shooting
because my grandfather was at Saratoga with Timothy Murphy.
Also love the historical aspects of it , their lifestyles , components , conditions of their rifles ?
With all the technicalities im learning about , its tough to see them doing it then ?
Hope you'll join in. DD
If we find the right books we can find TARGETS from the late flint era or from experiments by people like Dillon or Cline using original rifles. I would have to refresh my memory but I think Dillon has some photos of early 19th c targets found with a rifle.
Then we have the documentation from the past, while riflemen and rifles vary the accuracy was pretty impressive. But 300 yard hits are not that difficult. Sighted about 2" high at 60 yards I need about 6 ft of elevation to hit pigs at 300 meters (in this case "pig" I only hit one about 5 shots). This with a 44" barreled 50 using 109 gr of FFF Swiss off our plank rest at Cody. According to Hanger the patriot rifleman liked to shoot from a prone position if possible. Had the wind not been blowing and a better aiming point to be had I would likely have gotten more since I had some near misses. Were close in elevation and would have hit a tall target easily. Back in the day there were complaints of the rifleman firing at too great a distance and efforts to keep them from firing past 150 yards, but 150 is pretty sure with a Kentucky of 40 caliber or above on man sized targets. This goes back to the skill of the rifleman and his ability in loading the rifle properly. Wind is a major factor. This is mentioned in Rev-War times. At 300 yards any breeze can result in several feet of drift. With no wind groups can be fired today at 200 yards that would, as they claimed in Rev-War times, to strike a mans head at 200 yards. But a very slight breeze at 200 will have a serious effect on a round ball of the calibers we typically use, under 1" anyway.
Dan
-
In the very early 70's, Taylor and I had read many of the books Dan speaks of and the attraction of longer range shooting with round balls and slugs was not lost on us. We figured if they could do it, we sure could as well.
When we were just kids (good eyes) - in our 20's, Taylor and I used to shoot at about a 14" to 18" white coloured rock that sat in a large V-shaped patch of black earth in a notch of rock on the side of the "Chief". The Chief was a granite mountain at Squamish, B.C. That rock made for a handy & alluring target for 2 young muzzleloading shooters. That was about 37years ago, now. For us with our muzzleloading rifles, it was an offhand target challenge and once we knew our sight picture, ie; how much sight and barrel over the rear sight to hold, hitting that rock was the norm. Missing was abnormal. I was able to hit it with Tracy's little .36 Seneca as well, but using the 128gr. MB slug - about 60gr. 2f if I recall correctly as did not like 3F with that bullet - too fast an excelleration, I guess.
By that time, I was shooting Bauska barrels on my reworked TC or maybe my first 1/2 stock build and Taylor was shooting GRRW or perhaps a Large barrel on his .62 Hawken. We already knew about feeding a rifle what it wanted for powder to give accuracy at longer ranges and about tight ball and patch combinations. The sighting method of holding front sight over the rear, is the one we still use today for long pokes. That method was Elmer Keith's long range handgun method. It worked for him, worked for us and still works for us. $#*!, we could see - back then.
-
"He'll, we could see back then".
X2. Had an ongoing thing with a couple other nuts to shoot a 16" steel target on the 200 yd berm w.22 pistols standing. I had a mark on the front sight for hold over. My best was 9 of 10 but average was 6-7.
-
Interesting you used the exposed barrel and front sight to aim at those distances. I too would shoot at distant targets but with a .22LR. My method was to estimate the hold over, and wind drift then identify an aiming point which provided the correct aim off. Once the aiming point was confirmed it was very routine to hit a 18" gong at 300.yards. I have even done it with a .45 1911 which apparently produced about the same trajectory as the .22 at that range. Killed a groundhog at 463 places with the .22lr but it was well into the second box of ammo so I consider it was his bad luck and a large number of chances which got him more than any skill I possessed.
-
;D @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.
I figure it like this: Their supply of weapons (though state of the art at the time) probably wasn't nearly so consistently well-made as ours are (though replicas of antiquity) these days. Which boiled down very neatly means to me that the "off-the-rack" gun back then was less likely than ours to be capable of great accuracy.
It always takes a marksman to make such shots with any regularity, but we don't have to start over working up a new load with every batch of powder we buy these days either.
Our equipment* and powder tends to be better, whereas they tended to shoot more and with more motivation i would say.
*speaking of our small world of enthusiasts, not the production-gun consumers.
-
Jerry I've used hold over and hold off using .223 w/ 52 gr HPs on prarie dogs. Took 4 rds to walk in on longest at near 600 yds (walk off between fence posts and count sections).
TC
-
Hello Rkymtn57,
When I read your post about your grandfather, it all sounded too familiar. I wonder if we are talking about the same Thomas Dickerson? The birth date on the grave doesn't jive with yours, but everything else seems to.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi230.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee62%2FLudworld%2FThomas%2520Dickerson%2520Grave%2FTDickersonHeadstone.jpg&hash=f5d9cf643cd2550f2a4e4ac6813adea0b139adc6) (http://s230.photobucket.com/user/Ludworld/media/Thomas%20Dickerson%20Grave/TDickersonHeadstone.jpg.html)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi230.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee62%2FLudworld%2FThomas%2520Dickerson%2520Grave%2FTDickersonFootstone.jpg&hash=f3f4b0f4f63906ed5566791d5b64dab534f81987) (http://s230.photobucket.com/user/Ludworld/media/Thomas%20Dickerson%20Grave/TDickersonFootstone.jpg.html)
My wife and I grew up on the border of Jefferson/Harrison Counties (Ohio) and she is related to the Dickerson Family through her grandfather, Edgar Dickerson Flowers (son of Benjamin Flowers and Carrie Dickerson). While wandering through the Dickerson Church Cemetery near Cadiz one day, I came across this grave site and was astonished to see a direct link to the Revolutionary War and Daniel Morgan. I knew of some Civil War links, but nothing of anyone that far back. I tried for awhile to find out more info about Thomas and his family, but could not find much of anything.
Seems like you have found some good info and I'd be interested to learn more if you would be willing to share. PM me if so. I have more pictures of grave markers from other family members as well if interested. I'd love to learn more about Thomas and his brother's links to Brady's Rangers! 8)
galudwig
-
Some years ago, someone posted a picture of an original barrel with lines scratched or filed perpendicular to the bore on the top flat. It was explained that these were for longer ranges, as the line on the barrel would be placed on top of the rear sight and the front sight would be held on the target.
For an experiment I made a set of low to the barrel sights much like the originals, fitted them to one of my rifles that I knew real well, put some masking tape on the top flat and without magnumizing the load, had at it. Other than having to use something similar to the 'Meret Device' because of my old man eyes, it worked!
Robby
-
Yes Galudwig , I would be very interested in talking to you more.
-
;D @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.
I figure it like this: Their supply of weapons (though state of the art at the time) probably wasn't nearly so consistently well-made as ours are (though replicas of antiquity) these days. Which boiled down very neatly means to me that the "off-the-rack" gun back then was less likely than ours to be capable of great accuracy.
It always takes a marksman to make such shots with any regularity, but we don't have to start over working up a new load with every batch of powder we buy these days either.
Our equipment* and powder tends to be better, whereas they tended to shoot more and with more motivation i would say.
*speaking of our small world of enthusiasts, not the production-gun consumers.
But if a rifle maker made inaccurate rifles he did not stay in business long. At least not riflemaking. Rifle matches were VERY common until about the time of WW-I when we became increasingly urbanized. So a rifle that did not shoot was not well regarded any more than it is today.
Its not that hard to make a good rifle barrel with 18th c technology.
Its all to easy to assume that everything in the past was crude or poorly made by modern standards. it reality often the reverse is true. For example some of the locks we have available today while made of modern materials show an amazing lack of workmanship or even understanding of how they are really supposed to function. Compare a well made forged spring to a cast one of the same dimensions (actually the forged spring can be much thinner. There really is no comparison.
Dan
-
;D @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.
I figure it like this: Their supply of weapons (though state of the art at the time) probably wasn't nearly so consistently well-made as ours are (though replicas of antiquity) these days. Which boiled down very neatly means to me that the "off-the-rack" gun back then was less likely than ours to be capable of great accuracy.
It always takes a marksman to make such shots with any regularity, but we don't have to start over working up a new load with every batch of powder we buy these days either.
Our equipment* and powder tends to be better, whereas they tended to shoot more and with more motivation i would say.
*speaking of our small world of enthusiasts, not the production-gun consumers.
But if a rifle maker made inaccurate rifles he did not stay in business long. At least not riflemaking. Rifle matches were VERY common until about the time of WW-I when we became increasingly urbanized. So a rifle that did not shoot was not well regarded any more than it is today.
Its not that hard to make a good rifle barrel with 18th c technology.
Its all to easy to assume that everything in the past was crude or poorly made by modern standards. it reality often the reverse is true. For example some of the locks we have available today while made of modern materials show an amazing lack of workmanship or even understanding of how they are really supposed to function. Compare a well made forged spring to a cast one of the same dimensions (actually the forged spring can be much thinner. There really is no comparison.
Dan
Yes, I get your points Dan. And really i'm just comparing Production Guns against the "hand-mades" that are prevalent around "here". Modern Production Guns are all over the place in accuracy, most requiring some attention before they shoot "up to their potential". Maybe i should not assume such a divide between Production Arms and Custom Shop goods. Yeah, I went Apples/Pears a little bit.
oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions. Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith? Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps?
-
All good stuff on long range shooting - Robby - Taylor's .62 Hawken had a white wear line in the browning from rubbing against the bench when loading - at the Squamish R&G club where we shot (at) 'The Chief'. That 3/8" or 1/2" wide 'rub mark' looked like a thin line when held over the rear sight and just happened to be perfectly 'situated' for the 325yard target. Place the blade in the middle of the rock and shoot - puff - off the rock.
-
It is recorded in Maj.Roberts book,"The Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle that the rifles of N.G.Whitmore were declared to be "unfair competition" in some matches in the American Northeast. The presentation rifle made by Whitmore for General Grant was tested at 110 yards and every shot would have hit the lid of a percussion cap box. This rifle I have seen and it is a small,under eight pounds hunting/offhand type and I would say it had Whitmore's fine 12 groove,gain twist rifling.Whitmore's rifles were famed for their superb accuracy and WHY none of our barrel makers today won't at least try to copy this man's proven work is beyond me.The Grant rifle was a "picket ball"gun and these odd little bullets must be loaded with much care or anything resembling accuracy would not be seen.Harry Pope's gain twist was a !:16 start and ended in a 1:15.75 and were eight grooves.I can't say from experience that the 12 grooves were any better but the recorded performances spoke loud enough so as experimentation should be tried in our times. I tried to get Bill Large to try it but Bill was closer to the end of his career than I realized to try it even though he seemed to be interested.Perhaps he saw no need for it in ordinary round ball barrels.
Bob Roller
-
;D @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.
Yes, I get your points Dan. And really i'm just comparing Production Guns against the "hand-mades" that are prevalent around "here". Modern Production Guns are all over the place in accuracy, most requiring some attention before they shoot "up to their potential". Maybe i should not assume such a divide between Production Arms and Custom Shop goods. Yeah, I went Apples/Pears a little bit.
oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions. Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith? Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps?
I was not speaking to modern production guns. They are very seldom even on my radar. And many shoot very well.
So far as the accuracy thing.... The case cited by Bob is a rare one.
There are always gun owners, shooters and riflemen.
I have a pretty pricey and very accurate rifle barrel that is routinely outshot by a friend with a really accurate rifle with a factory made barrel that cost 25% of what the custom barrel did, worse I sold the rifle to him. Making the lash for my own back so to speak. But much of this is eyesight. If my friend had either rifle he would be very difficult to out shoot.
Family history tells me that my great-grandfather was not allowed to shoot his own rifle in matches in 19th c Arkansas. I have no idea if this is true or not but thats how its come down to me.
I have a production brass suppository rifle that is hard to beat at 400 by rifles with scopes that cost more than my entire outfit but I have problems at 100 so I need to find a load for 100. Or refine my shooting.
The hard core shooters do not subscribe to nit picky rules and such. You bring what you have and shoot it. Be it a ML match or something more modern. I love the shooting and the competition. Win or lose I have a good time. Competition with teach the shooter a great deal about his rifle and all other aspects of the use of the rifle.
Dan
-
Given a man size target at 200 yards, a good shot should be able to lob a ball into that target just from his/her everyday knowledge of the use of their muzzle loading rifle. 300 yards should not be out of the question either on a man size target. I've hit the 55 gallon drum that use to set out at our range's 300 yard berm many a times. Just hitting your enemy anywhere on their body will do damage and send quite a message to those that thought they may have been safely out of range.
If I recall (and I may be wrong about this), didn't Murphy hit the General on his second or perhaps third shot?
-
galudwig and Rkymtn57--Find your nearest DAR Chapter and you may get the information you are looking for--They have tons of information about RW participants. To become a member of the DAR an applicant has to submit a veritable family tree proving they are a descendant of a RW veteran. Good Luck
-
oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions. Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith? Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps?
[/quote]
A golden opportunity. Mr X signs the rifle Mr Y and sells it for twice as much..... :o :o :o
-
I recently acquired a .54 Ozark Mtn Arms Hawken with no barrel sights. I installed a set of Hawkwn type sights and headed to the range. At 50m the gun was shooting about 8" low but I was working on getting good groups prior to worrying about elevation. The gun liked 85 gr of Goex 2f with a .530 ball. With the impact still 8" low at 50m I tried a shot at the 18" gong at 200m and missed. No visible bullet strike suggested the ball impacted low in the grassy slope of the berm. I held up more front sight and smacked the gong with the second shot. If you shoot these guns enough, 200-300 yard shots aren't all that difficult given reasonable wind conditions
-
Any thoughts on keeping these 18th century rifles barrels rust and pit free , thru
constant outdoor exposure during 3 campaign seasons . Could you do it ?
What do you believe the level of knowledge was as to the importantance of it ?
They had to be the most valuable , expensive and important piece of equipment owned. DD
-
We have an 18 inch circular plate set up at 130 yards at the range and many of us hit it consistently offhand. Once you know your elevation you can hit it every time.
-
Any thoughts on keeping these 18th century rifles barrels rust and pit free , thru
constant outdoor exposure during 3 campaign seasons . Could you do it ?
What do you believe the level of knowledge was as to the importantance of it ?
They had to be the most valuable , expensive and important piece of equipment owned. DD
I really doubt it was much different then from today. I've seen those who pamper their smoke pole, and those that (what I would call) abuse their smoke pole.
The firearm was just an extention of the, sword, spear, bow, blunt instruments, and for them to all work effectively, they had to remain rust free (maybe not so much the blunt instrument's and bows (except cross bows), but I think the heritage of keep your hunting and battle weapons in good working order was passed down through the ages.
-
We have an 18 inch circular plate set up at 130 yards at the range and many of us hit it consistently offhand. Once you know your elevation you can hit it every time.
We use to shoot at a round 24 inch circular gong as well, that was hung out at 200 yards during some of our matches. It wasn't that difficult to hit. Knowing how to read your shooting conditions is everything.
-
oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions. Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith? Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps?
A golden opportunity. Mr X signs the rifle Mr Y and sells it for twice as much..... :o :o :o
[/quote]
Just how many times? And where did you read this?
Why would someone pay good money for an inferior rifle?
If this were true people like Horace Warner, Perry and a number of others would never have shot in matches. There were a lot of good makers who made very accurate rifles.
Now Horace Warner made a 69 caliber slug gun that was so accurate that nobody would shoot against it. Or so I have been told.
Dan
-
On maintaining rifles in the field. I know black powder is still made with the same ingredients as it was back then and is corrosive then as now. I also know wrought iron is not as prone to rust as steel, but at any rate I'm sure reasonable care would have to have been exerted to maintain a shoot able accurate rifle. I've also never shot a rifle with a wrought barrel nor ever cleaned one with tow.
-
On maintaining rifles in the field. I know black powder is still made with the same ingredients as it was back then and is corrosive then as now. I also know wrought iron is not as prone to rust as steel, but at any rate I'm sure reasonable care would have to have been exerted to maintain a shoot able accurate rifle. I've also never shot a rifle with a wrought barrel nor ever cleaned one with tow.
If the accuracy started to fail the rifle was then freshed to restore it. This was done to one of the Officers rifles (Clark's i thing, too lazy to confirm) during the L&C expedition by Shields when its accuracy degraded. This restored its shooting qualities.
This was common as was re breeching, back farther than many like to think of the rifle being common in the Colonies.
Dan
-
Very interesting thoughts guys , Thank you, DD
-
Guy`s, Thank you... This site is awesome. I remember walking into the trading post when it was in the back of a gas station at 9yrs old. I saw a navy arms .45 "Kentucky rifle ;D" hanging on the wall and just had to have it. My dad bought it and I paid him back every week out of my "first mate" money on the lobster boat. It was a cap lock and I shot that thing every day.... I had no idea about adjusting sights or "working up a load". I put in what the salesman told me to for powder... my point is, I could hit a chick-a-dee at 50 yds with this thing. I had to aim to the right and just learned from constant shooting how high or low to shoot at different ranges. Ignorance was bliss! I used this gun for everything.... Deer, bear, rabbits, squirrels, partridge, Chick-a-dee`s( I know... But I was just a kid ::) ). Point is, I used it everyday and learned how, where to hold for every circumstance. I think that , from what I`ve read and hear, some(most? ) guys back in 1775 may have had a similar experience and intimate knowledge of their firearm. Thanks to this site and you guys I have built from scratch a flinter from the 1760`s era. I don't shoot half as good as I used to with a much superior rifle. I think I may have learned myself into non- accuracy ;D
Kenny
-
Kenny, I use fixed iron sights and center them with a caliper then use Kentucky windage from there. It's amazing what both front & rear centered sights can achieve. As long as you know your rifle's sighting quirks, you're there.
-
oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions. Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith? Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps?
A golden opportunity. Mr X signs the rifle Mr Y and sells it for twice as much..... :o :o :o
Just how many times? And where did you read this?
Why would someone pay good money for an inferior rifle?
If this were true people like Horace Warner, Perry and a number of others would never have shot in matches. There were a lot of good makers who made very accurate rifles.
Now Horace Warner made a 69 caliber slug gun that was so accurate that nobody would shoot against it. Or so I have been told.
Dan
[/quote]
Doesn't have to be very many. Sell a few inferior rifles with a well known name on them and then move on. The Colonel warned "Beware of copies and counterfeits", and there were many thosands of spurious "derringers" sold to unsuspecting buyers. Not all that glitters is gold, and there are many willing to take advantage of the gullible.
-
I have been shooting since about the age of 5, and one of the earlieast things my late father told me at the time, "beware the man with only one gun. chances are he will know how to use it " I have been using rifles with fixed sights for years and have learned to aim off. Have not had a chance to shoot my long rifles at 200yds plus as yet, for no other reason than just not gotten around to it. This site has initrigued me with the thought of trying some long shots, so when time and opportunity permit, will have a go and report back here what happened. Have done some long range shooting with a PH Navy rifle, with bare minnie bullet and have hit a small gong pretty regular at 300 yds I know its not a round ball, but still open sights, and still had to aim off some to the right. and have been using that rifle since I was 14, am now 52.
Cheers
Gordon
-
My dad use to tell me the same thing, Gordon. As I approach 58 years old, I have my favorite flintlock and cap lock rifle's, two I shoot almost exclusively. Still, I have a soft spot for the rest. I guess what I'm getting at is that we have a lot more choices today then our ancestors had. Most had to make do with one rifle. They knew it like the back of their hand.
-
Part I
I have often wondered how much the “legendary” accuracy of the rifle in 1776 had to do with how inaccurate the period Military Musket was? Of course I’m talking in comparison to the “King’s Arm” that we today call the Brown Bess, because that was the musket the majority of British Americans (Colonial Americans) would have compared rifles against until the French started supplying Muskets in the mid Rev War period.
Here were some of the major “period problems” with Brown Bess Musket accuracy:
1. Bore size. While the bore was usually known/recorded as “.75 cal” and in a very few instances .76 cal., testing done on original muskets in the Tower and more recently the Royal Armouries in Leeds of original muskets show the bore sizes actually ranged from .76 cal. to .80 cal.
2. Ball size. The standard ball size for the paper wrapped cartridges averaged .67 to .69 caliber. Though the wadded up paper wrapped cartridges took care of some of the “windage” or difference in the ball to bore size, that meant the ball size to bore size varied from “as little as” .070” to as much as .130.” That alone would have greatly harmed uniform accuracy. (Side note: For many years in this country, excavated musket balls were incorrectly described as “French” due to their size being small enough to fit French Muskets. This was corrected in areas such bullets were found and ONLY British Muskets were used and by checking some original molds.)
3. Trigger Pull Weight. I specifically asked members of the British International Muzzle Loading Team at two World Championships at Wedgnock, UK in the mid 90’s if they had checked trigger pulls on the original muskets, as they had checked bore sizes. They admitted they had not and most probably because most shooters have the trigger pulls lessened for International Shooting, even on original firearms. The British Team members most familiar with original Brown Bess muskets estimated the average trigger pull at 10 lbs or more. My own testing of reproduction Brown Bess muskets shows they average 10 to 14 lb trigger pulls. Even a 10 lb trigger is a LOT to fight against when trying to get the best accuracy.
4. The way the trigger was pulled. Even though British and American troops were beginning to be taught to AIM during the French and Indian War and was common practice in the American Revolution, the problem of inherent inaccuracy came about when they fired in volleys. To get those nice, crisp, military sounding volley fires where the volley sounds like one musket being fired – DEMANDS every soldier JERK THE DICKENS out of the trigger. That inevitably results in shooting HIGH and often right over top of the opposing soldiers UNLESS one “aims” at the crotch or even the knees (at close range) of the opposing soldier. As late as the American Civil War, volley firing continued to throw shots over the heads of opposing soldiers MOST of the time.
No wonder period accounts say that maximum Musket Range was 60 to no more than 80 yards to reliably hit an opposing soldier and that may have only been a hit in the leg or arm!!!
I spent 23 years of doing “trigger jobs” on original and reproduction Un-Civil War guns at the Spring and Fall National Championships for the North South Skirmish Association. Here are the average weights of trigger pull on original guns: British Enfield Rifle Muskets 8 to 10 lbs, Springfield and American made rifle muskets 10 to 12 lbs, Pattern 1816/22 muskets 10 to 14 lbs, Smith Carbines 18 to 27 lbs. Now compare that to the M1 Garand or M14 trigger pull weight of 4 ½ to 7 ½ lbs where most rifles averaged 5 ½ to 6 ½ lbs when new. Springfield M1903 rifles averaged 4 to 5 lbs. When one gets a trigger on a musket or rifled musket down to a RELIABLE 4 lb trigger, the difference in feel and accuracy potential is SUBSTANTIAL.
What I don’t know is the “average” trigger pull weight of an original American Long Rifle that did not have a set trigger of some sort. Not even sure if we can come up with an average. However, if the average trigger pull was 4 to 5 lbs, then that gives a substantial advantage in practical accuracy to a Longrifle user.
Gus
-
As I have stated before there are surviving targets from the early 19th c shot with a FL rifle are are "comparable" to what a hunting weight rifle would do today. There are rifles made on essentially the same equipment as 200 years ago that are very accurate and I am not sure from the accuracy stand point the material used is better and in fact I doubt in many cases it is. Read Dillon and Cline.
It goes back to the quality of the barrel, the care taken in making it and the person loading and shooting it.
We have numerous description of the rifles accuracy from Colonial times. Read Huddleston's book "Colonial Riflemen" and "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse.
There is discussion of Musket accuracy and attempts to improve in in the 19th c in "Firearms of The American West 1803-1865" by Garavaglia and Worman.
Dan
-
"Knowing" a round ball rifle.
A 45 to 54 caliber rb rifle loaded to about 1/2 ball weight of powder will shoot close enough to the same trajectory for military purposes to 200 yards.
When reading the accounts of the Breeds Hill fight there was one rifleman standing on a rampart being handed rifles. He was shooting officers and non-coms for 15 minutes (from a Bristish officers account) before being killed by the Royal Welsh Fusillers or some such when they finally got close enough and this took a volley.
So we have to ask the question, how far did the British advance during that time and how many shots did he fire with the rifles being handed to him? 300 yards? How close did the enemy get before killing him? He certainly did not seem to fear them shooting at him, at least not enough. It is possible that this one rifleman (and he could have been nothing else) may have killed the majority of the British officers and Non-coms that were killed there and likely at ranges out to 200 yards at least. So many were killed that they discarded their regalia denoting their rank until the end of the War. It is really doubtful that all these rifles, maybe only 6 or 10, were the same caliber or even stock design. A good shot is a good shot. No matter how many guns he might own. Don't matter what a poor shot has its not going to be as consistent as it would be in the hands of an expert shot with 20-15 vision.
By the time of the American Revolution making rifles was well understood it never ceases to amaze me that we moderns are so ready to believe that our forefathers were somehow dumber or less capable than we are.
Example: The modern milling machine and lathe dates to the 1840s-50s when Robbins, Lawrence and probably Nicandor Kendall developed them to make firearms. They remained largely unchanged in function until the advent of the computer controlled machines.
Dan
-
Artificer, I have looked at Brown Bess muskets in the Tower of London and other British museums. Most of them had muzzle openings worn into ovals and the buttons on the ramrods were worn to nubs. The shooter of such might as well have been blindfolded. Compared to one of those even a well bored smooth rifle would have seemed like a laser beam.
That said, Dan is spot on - it's all about the inside of the barrel. A skilled gunmaker can make a true bore with a good eye and some basic tools. Nothing new under the sun there. All we can do today is make them faster.
-
Dan,
Thank you. You said it well, with knowing your rifle and being a good shot. Anyone that is a good shot makes it all look easy!
Michael
-
Part II
Period Accuracy of the Long Rifle.
Was it Dan that mentioned the use of a bullet board for loading and Hessian troops using them to cut patches? I read it and now can’t find it. My apology. I am not disputing it, but where is that recorded?
Gary Brumfield noted in this forum that 18th century gunsmiths could bore and polish a barrel that was within one or two thousandths of an inch of the ball size. Though I don’t remember him specifically stating it, I have to assume that they started by making the ball mold and then used a ball cast from that mold to check when they bored and polished the barrel. So we know the “windage” in those barrels was held to a pretty tight tolerance considering they did not have precision measuring instruments.
The next consideration is what metal was the barrel made from and we know in the period it was usually iron. Though I don’t know of scientific testing done on iron barrels, I speculate they had better harmonic vibration than period steel barrels and that would have made them more accurate, though they would have worn out more and had to be “refreshed” or “re-cut” sooner than steel barrels.
We seem to know far, far less about the materials they used for patches, though it has come down they used cloth or even thin leather.
The problem with period cloth was how tightly was it woven and how uniformly thick was it? Too thin or less tightly woven cloth would have “burned through” the patch then just as it does today and not given as good of accuracy. More tightly woven and more uniform thickness cloth was available from imports from Europe India and even the orient: but how much would they have varied in thickness from time to time the Riflemen could/did acquire it? Period Riflemen had no precise way to test thickness and perhaps they bought a tiny piece of available cloth and tried it for accuracy in their rifle before they bought more? This is pure speculation on my part, but I often wondered if when they found cloth that worked well in their rifles, did they buy a good bit of the cloth at one time to use for some time afterwards? That’s how I would do it, but I’m not sure we will ever know.
I really wonder if using leather for patch material was something reserved only for when they ran out of cloth? Then, what kind of leather would have been thin enough without having to skive/thin it AND not a skin that was more valuable to trade as pelts? Maybe squirrel or rabbit? Yes, I know some accounts say “buckskin,” but traditional/period tanned deer skins just seem to be too thick when/if they had even a modestly tight fitting ball. Could it be the period writers incorrectly identified other thinner skins as “buck skin” when writing about leather used to patch the balls?
While we use a short starter today for a tight fitting ball/patch combination for the best accuracy, there seems to be no period accounts of a use of a short starter. Or are there accounts of which I’ve never heard?
One rifle we DO have extensive accounts and documentation of is the Baker Rifle, though that came out 25 to 30 years after the Rev War. Still, it was a flintlock and it used patched balls. The rifling twist was different being ¼ turn in the 30 inch barrel or One turn in 120 inches. Most were fitted with a rear sight sighted for 200 yards and at least the early ones also had a folding sight for 300 yards. History International showed a Brit shooting an original Baker Rifle at 100, 200 and 300 yards Off Hand and he hit good torso shots on the targets with one shot each time. That’s pretty good shooting.
This makes me wonder at what ranges the American Longrifles were sighted for, at least during war time and did they shorten the front sights to get a “zero” at longer distances, such as was done on the Baker Rifle? For those who are not familiar with the term, a “zero” is the sight settings or the way the sights are adjusted for a particular range with the rifle. It would seem to me that it was done, at least to some degree, though I can not prove that. Otherwise, it would have been MUCH more difficult to make the long distance shots that are recorded DURING the “Fog of War” or combination confusion, fear, adrenaline rush, excitement, etc., etc. that covers the battlefield and makes long distance shots more difficult. With the sights adjusted for longer range, you just aim lower on the body when at short range and higher or just over the heads of the enemy when at longer ranges beyond the distance you sight in at. Also, could this be a reason many original front sights on Long Rifles are shorter than what we use today? (Yes, I know the reason most often cited for short front and rear sights is to supposedly make them faster to acquire in woods or low light, though I’m not sure that is true.)
Finally and though the source for this is after the Rev War, I found a VERY interesting period source for telling how far away a person was in one of my Civil War reference books. I was researching the range and effectiveness of the .58 caliber rifle musket in the early 1980’s. I came across a surprising reference that the sights were made to allow soldiers to effectively hit an enemy at 300 yards. WOW, I thought, that is the same “Battle Sight Zero” we had been using since at least the M1 Garand, M14 and M16 rifles. Of course, I had learned quite a few years earlier that in NSSA competition shot at 50 and 100 yards, that front sights were regularly built up or replaced with taller ones as the “Issue” front sight caused the rifles to shoot high even at 100 yards and WAY too high at 50 yards.
What the book then gave was a way to tell how far away an enemy soldier was by how well you could define parts of the human body. IE, if the enemy was 500 yards away, you can not distinguish his arms with the naked eye ball. As the range got closer, you could distinguish the arms, then the hands and when much closer, the fingers. Though the reference did not mention it, the old military slogan of “Don’t fire until you can see the whites of their eyes!” came to mind, because it is very close range when you can distinguish that on and enemy soldier. OK, since I worked at Weapons Training Battalion and we had rifle ranges all over the place, I decided to test the information and it was a pretty good way to measure distance. So I decided to share this information with the Scout Sniper Instructor School, since it was only maybe 80 yards from where I worked in the Rifle and Pistol Team Repair Shop and we regularly conversed with them on the Model 40A1 Sniper Rifle and other things about long range shooting and improving the rifles we built for them.
So I typed up the information on a separate piece of paper and took it over to show the Instructors at the Scout Sniper Instructor School. They had never heard of such a way to estimate range, but they were intrigued and also checked it out that afternoon at Range 1. They called me later on that afternoon and said they were going to teach it because it was easy and it worked and WTH did I get that information?!! I told them it came from a Civil War period training document. The Instructor who called me groaned and said, “Some more of that Muzzle loading (stuff) again, huh?” I said yes it was, but hadn’t their tests also confirmed it worked? He chuckled and said, “Yep, it DOES work and we are going to teach it.” Now, I have looked and looked through my library for the reference and I no longer have it. Unfortunately, I loaned a BUNCH of my books out to others and it most probably was in books I never got back. I don’t believe it noted who came up with the information and WHEN it was first used, though it was known well enough to get it through the Ultra Conservative Military Minds of the Civil War. That suggests it was known for at least some time earlier, though I can’t prove it was known during the American Revolutionary War.
To sum up, I DO believe period Flintlock Rifles had the accuracy potential to make shots that were recorded. What I don’t know is how they got their rifles to shoot that well.
Gus
-
Artificer, I have looked at Brown Bess muskets in the Tower of London and other British museums. Most of them had muzzle openings worn into ovals and the buttons on the ramrods were worn to nubs. The shooter of such might as well have been blindfolded. Compared to one of those even a well bored smooth rifle would have seemed like a laser beam.
Rex,
The British International Muzzleloading Shooters I spoke to also mentioned the muzzle wear on many of the Brown Besses in the museums. They used long, precision inside calipers to measure the bores to get accurate readings on the guns with worn muzzles as well as guns in private collections that came from collections that had been on the walls of manor homes for years before they were sold in the last few decades.
I was dreaming for months finally fulfilling my decades long desire of visiting the Tower to see the Arms Collection the first shoot I attended in ’96. Imagine my great disappointment they had moved the collection to Leeds only a few years before and I had not known it until we walked into the Tower compound! Actually, I was somewhat mollified by the rather large number of early military and sporting flintlocks with single bridle locks on display at Warwick Castle.
Still, I was surprised that not one of the British Shooters used an original Brown Bess in the Miquelet Match for Original Military smooth-bore flintlock muskets. They confirmed what members of the American Team had told me that they were not as accurate as the French Muskets. That is also why they were always looking for and asking if any American Team member had a good shooting original M1816/22 musket for sale. One grinned and told me they MUCH preferred a musket made “in their own colonies” and/or at least by an ENGLISH speaking country. Grin.
Gus
-
i have read a couple of references to americans shooting abilities. the first was supposed to be an excerpt from a letter sent to england by a brit officer. it was shortly before the war. he told his family that he hoped the current tensions did not lead to war because when the small american boys went out after the cows in the evening, they would carry rifles that were longer than they were tall and would usually bring supper back in the form of turkey, rabbit or some other small game.
the other instance was an account by a brit officer that said he and his aide and courrier rode out to a small hilltop overlooking a mill. he and his aide were side by side facing the mill and the courrier was crosswise right behind them, all were horseback. an american ran out and lay down with his rifle and the officer commented they had better move as the americans were going to "amuse them selves at our expense". the american fired and the courrier stated his horse had been hit and was stepping off as the horse fell. the officer stated that his troops were "well secreted in the woods", so he wasnt shooting at them. this means the shot was to center of mass. the officer said he had crossed that area many times since then and "knew the distance to be well in excess of 400 yds". mark
-
"This makes me wonder at what ranges the American Longrifles were sighted for, at least during war time and did they shorten the front sights to get a “zero” at longer distances, such as was done on the Baker Rifle?"
My first thoughts of this question is, why would you worry about re'zeroing your rifle? The one thing there was plenty of on the eastern seaboard back during the ARW, was trees, big trees. It would not be that difficult to pick out a tree and tie a "flag" of sorts around it to designate the height and width of the average man back then, and commence shooting to see what hold over you would need to strike the enemy with your shot from several distances.
My gut instinct is that most the American Riflemen already had a good idea of how high to hold for the long shot's they may take, simply from hunting in the dense wooded area's and open meadows, before the war came along. Some probably already knew from the French and Indian War.
I just don't see a rifleman filing his front sight down after he's used his muzzle loader for a very long time with the sights at the existing height they'd always been.
-
Why file down a front sight? It depends on how one has his rifle zero’d to begin with.
Shooting in woods is often a short range application, though shooting in meadows can be a long to very long range application.
Unless there is a tree or landmark behind something you are shooting at longer distances, getting the correct amount of “hold over” is chancy at best, though one normally had more error room for height on a standing soldier.
If one is going to take 300 or 400 yards shots with a round ball and expect to hit the enemy most of the time, there is going to be a lot more bullet drop than one experiences with a rifle sighted for short to mid ranges, IE 50 yards up to 100 yards. Many rifles sighted dead on at 75 yards will be two to four inches low at 100 and way, WAY low at 200 to 300, let alone 400. Actually this most likely explains why Riflemen in the American Revolution were ordered not to take long shots because they missed too often, as has been related in this thread once or twice and by the following anecdote.
“Light Horse Harry Lee, in later years, recalled that on Reedy Fork he had posted twenty five of Campbell's sharpshooters in an old log schoolhouse with chinking gone. These men could split an apple held on the point of a ramrod by a comrade 150 yards away. They were to fire on 'particular objects'. An important looking officer, later found to be Colonel Webster, was spotted on a fat horse, making slow progress in deep water. All the marksmen had a shot at him, seriatim, some reloading for a second try, all seeing, not believing, as horse and rider passed the stream unhurt.”
http://rockbridgeadvocate.com/odell/marches.htm
If one sights in a .50 rifle to be dead on at 125 yards with a .50 caliber bullet, it will drop over 2 feet at 200. Chart #1- 50 caliber, 180 grain round ball at 1800 fps showing path of ball. Sight in at 125 yards. Load was 150 grains FFFg .
http://www.whitemuzzleloading.com/long_range_muzzleloading.htm
Holding a little high to shoot an apple off a ramrod at 150 yards would not be a huge feat if the rifle was sighted at 125 yards. I honestly don’t know how far the bullet will drop further at 300 and 400 yards, though it surely was enough to make “hold over” estimates difficult at best.
Now going back to the Baker Rifle, they were sighted at 200 yards and had a flip up sight for 300 yards. The shooter on the History International Channel took ONE shot each at 100, 200 and 300 yards STANDING (Yes, that’s offhand and not laying down and resting the rifle on something as noted that American Riflemen usually did at long range) and all were first round hits in the torso area of a man. That demonstrates two things: 1. A .62 caliber flintlock rifle sighted for 200 yards is not difficult to hit a man size target at 100 in the torso. 2. Since the Baker has a flip up rear sight, the shooter could use the SAME height front sight and hit the torso of a man while STANDING at 300 yards. That is an excellent shot from a skilled marksman.
Now, if one is going to change the zero of a rifle that is sighted in at 125 yards to 200 yards or more, you either have to file down the front sight or put a taller rear sight in place. Since filing down the front sight is easier than replacing the rear sight in an 18th century military context, that’s why I mentioned filing down the front sight. The REASON you would want to file down the front sight to get a longer range 200 yard (or more) zero is you could still hit well at 100 yards by aiming LOWER on the body and you would not have to hold as high off the top of the head for longer shots. That means in the heat of battle, it makes it easier to hit accurately at long range because you aren’t guessing as much for elevation “hold over.”
Why would you WANT to have a rifle sighted in for 200 yards or more? Even at “loose order” used by British Forces, you want to hit enemy soldiers and kill or seriously wound them as far away as possible because you CAN and you can’t load as fast as a musket and don’t have a bayonet. Riflemen equipped with front sights that were filed down for a longer range “zero” would have been able to effectively engage British soldiers at 300 yards or more. Now, perhaps they didn’t do that very often and that’s the reason they missed so often that they were ordered not to take as many long range shots?
Gus
-
I believe the American Riflemen's rifle's already had the reputation of having low sights which they (at that time) felt gave the best accuracy. The combination of taking all the front sight to the base (or anywhere in between top to bottom) along with hold over would generate your ranging out beyond 100 yards to 200 & 300, with the 400 yard shot, a shot in the dark but try it anyway. A hit on your enemy is a hit no matter what. The hit on the horse from 400 yards still sent a message for the British officers to leave that hill, which they did.
I don't think we can compare the Baker rifle to the American long rifles of the day. The rifles, just as the men using them were complete opposites. Those using the Baker Rifle's were using them in battle - fighting for their King, and no doubt the occasional hunt when given permission. Those using the Long Rifle were woodsmen mostly, and they used their rifle's almost certainly on a day to day application of hunting or battle. Obviously not every day, but more so then the soldiers using the Baker rifle.
I just think marksmanship was bred into the frontiersmen / woodsmen, and that's what made them so effective with ranging shots when ranging long shots were called for. Sure, you probably won't hit your target every time, but coming close can sure send a message to those on the receiving end. :) :)
-
Holding lower on the front sight is more difficult to make up for the bullet drop at 300 and 400 yards when the front sight is already low. Grooved lines in the barrel would help there. That way you could still (at least more often) actually see your target to sight in on it and thus have less risk of missing.
The problem with holding over, is the target has to be standing still or you don’t have much chance of hitting it, even when you happen to judge the hold over correctly, because you can’t see the target and slight misalignments will cause the bullet to be off the mark OR if the person moves slightly, you won’t hit them.
The accounts of 300 and especially 400 yard hits are pretty sparse in the record, and when they have hit something, it often took them two or more shots and that was while resting the rifle. Then of course there is the evidence American Riflemen were ordered not to fire at longer ranges because they missed so much.
Then of course there is evidence like Campbell’s 25 rifleman who all missed at least once or more when firing at a Colonel on a fat horse moving through water. For extremely skilled rifleman, SOMEONE should have hit him out of those 25 plus shots fired.
Further, as noted in this thread, short starters were almost unknown to American Riflemen during the Revolution, so the long range accuracy they actually got from their rifles isn’t what we can get out of similar rifles today, because their patched balls did not fit as tightly.
Where the American riflemen probably did hit well was within 150 yards, because they were used to shooting at that distance or less.
Your reasoning that the American Riflemen were much more used to shooting and firing than the British Soldiers who used the Baker rifles, actually shows the advantage of sighting the rifles for 200 yards for war, as the British riflemen were not as accomplished of rifle shots. It takes a lot of the guess work out of the shots and they did not need to be so experienced to hit well on the battlefield.
Gus
-
This is an interesting topic that requires some field testing. Fortunately where I live our local range stretches out to 300 yards. Now I've shot out to 200 yards many a time, and we use to have a little annual contest we did here on ALR (shooting out to 200 yards) but we haven't done this in awhile.
While there is no way (for me) to duplicate a moving target out to 300 yards without a lot of rope and preparation, I do think in the Spring I will have to set something up (3 Redcoats) at maybe 300, 250, and 200 yards and see what becomes of that, using my (obviously) fixed sight flintlock long rifle. I fully intend to shoot from a prone position at 300 yards, kneeling (using a tree as a rest to lean against for the 250 yard shot, and I'll probably fabricate something up to slide the rifle over to duplicate firing across a fallen tree at 200 yards. Shooting from "cover" would have been the primary goal of the American Rifleman (if all went well during the battle), so this should prove interesting.
I may also try to get our State Senior Historical Adviser involved in this test as he has an 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle, and is an avid traditional muzzle loading shooter. Have to see what we can come up with.
-
I would be very interested in the results of such a test, with some caveats.
I assume you are going to use a set of front and rear sights that are as low on the barrel as originals were. I mention this because many of us stray from original size sights and put larger ones on our rifles nowadays to shoot better. If the sights are not close duplicates of the originals, then I believe you would agree the results would not be valid, especially as you mentioned possibly using an Original Harpers Ferry Rifle that have the original sights on them. It would be great for you to record the height of the front and rear sights.
I’m not sure how you are going to replicate the looser fitting ball/patch combinations that were used back then when they did not use bullet starters and that will detract from accuracy. I know one can come up with slightly smaller diameter balls, nowadays, but I’m not sure how that would agree with original bullet/patch combinations and I don’t believe we will ever know because in most cases, as the original molds for the rifles were not kept with the rifles. Maybe the closest we can come would be a ball that can be pressed into the bore with the thumb and rammed down with just the wiping stick (wood ramrod)? May I also suggest that linen or a cloth material authentic to the period be used for the patching material? Cotton cloth is out because it was way too expensive in the 18th century, while linen of some sort would be much more authentic, though other period materials could have been used. May I also suggest that you don’t take measurements of the cloth as they had no way to do that in the period other than how/if the patch allowed the ball to go down the bore? Please understand I’m not trying to throw a ringer in with this paragraph, as I really am not sure how one could authentically replicate the looser ball/patch combinations they used with authentic materials.
The selection of the rifle balls is important, as well. I believe you would expect them to all be cast from a mold (even allowing our modern molds most likely make more uniform and therefore more accurate bullets). I would expect you to select the best looking ones, by eye, as they would most likely have done for long range shooting. I’m sure you would agree that weighing balls for uniformity was not something they could have done.
Another problem I see is how to duplicate 18th century gun powder. I would not expect you to try to make your own, but it is possible or even likely our modern powders are more consistent and therefore more accurate. I think we will just have to allow for a little less accuracy for original powders, perhaps? However, I do expect you to use the best powder charge you came up with for the best accuracy from your 200 yard shooting, as that is what they would have done.
If the sights of the rifle/s you are going to use are as low as the originals, I think it’s great you already have a 200 yard zero or know where to hold for that distance. I also assume you will try to fire when the wind is not blowing or blowing the least, because that is what they would have done, if possible. It would be very interesting to get results from some wind blowing and at what speed/s in the data as well, though.
I am not sure I would expect a moving target to be shot at in your tests. I can’t prove it, but I don’t think 300 yards or more would have been a distance that most Eastern American Riflemen would have taken a shot on a moving target in hunting, unless MAYBE it was a slow walking deer. Not even sure they would take the chance of spooking the deer by doing it and would have waited for the deer to stop or worked closer to the deer before taking a shot. Further, to reliably hit a moving target at that distance, the target would preferably be moving at a constant speed. If speed of the target changed, even after the bullet was fired, it could easily cause a miss on a man, if not a deer. Most of, if not all the 300 plus yard shots recorded seem to have been shot at Soldiers who were not moving. I think good results could be taken from taking a rest as you mentioned and shooting at 300 yards (and 400 yards if your range has that distance) at a stationary man sized silhouette. I very much agree that while a rifle ball in the arm would not have been a completely disabling shot, a hit even in the arm was much better than no hit at all and would have been well worth doing and “disabling enough.”
Here is something that we just can not duplicate in a modern test and that is how the rifleman was affected by the fog of war and battlefield conditions, as no one is shooting at you or advancing on you as you are shooting. However, I admit it probably would not have bothered a rifleman as much when the enemy was 300 yards away vs 100 or less yards away. So may we agree that the shooting you do is going to be a better example of what the rifle can do vs what a Rifleman could or did do when the battle was going on?
If I were going to do such a test, I would get a target frame used in NRA high power rifle matches to mount the target. That way, it may be easier to record how far off each shot is by where it strikes on the target cloth and that may make it easier on you. I would use a police silhouette target attached to the target frame as a realistic target, though I would add “legs” to it because a leg shot would have been very much a disabling shot, if not a killing shot from blood loss. Average height of a British soldier in 1775 was about 5’6”, while the average height of an American then was two to three inches taller.
If it would not be too much of an imposition, may I suggest you shoot at least a three shot group at each distance you shoot and not wipe between shots? That would give us a better picture of accuracy the rifle is capable of delivering at longer ranges.
Please understand I’m very interested in such a test and I would do it myself, but I’m now too old at 60 with eyesight going seriously downhill and don’t shoot nearly as well as I did 20 or 30 years ago, so it would not be a valid test if I did it.
Gus
-
Good morning Gus.
I wouldn't let age stop you, your only two years older then I, and I know what you mean about the eye sight issues. Still, I have to try. My friend with the Harper's Ferry is 64, but I think he'll join me in this.
The rifle I plan on using is a plain Jane .45 caliber - 42" barrel Dickert (Pennsylvania) rifle. The rear sight is 3/16" tall with the bottom of "V" notch setting at about 9/64ths. Front sight sets at 5/32nds tall. My normal load's for this rifle is 55 & 65 grains of 3fg with a .445 ball, but I do have some .437 & .440 balls. I might even have some .433 balls laying around somewhere? I think I have some linen for patching laying around somewhere. If not, I'll just have to get some.
I can't speak for Jim's rifle, the Harper's Ferry. Not sure what he's shooting through it? I have a while to find this out however.
For targets, I was thinking of just making them out of 3/8 CDX plywood, full size silhouette with even the hat on the head, and complete with legs,,, paint them up to resemble a British Redcoat, and prop 'em up. Our little muzzle loading group can have some fun with them after the testing is done. I'll probably make four of them.
With four targets, I'm thinking perhaps - 150, 200, 250, and 300 yards. Not so sure a 100 yard target would even need to be addressed?
I'm also now thinking that shots taken should be;
One shot each (offhand & Kneeling) - 150 yards
One shot each (Kneeling & Prone) - 200 yards
250 & 300 yards shooting position to be determined from the best results of the 150 & 200 yard shots.
Note; the offhand & kneeling shots would be while leaning against a tree for support. The prone shooting pretty much speaks for itself, but I'll leave open the option of shooting across a fallen log to rest the rifle on or against.
I can't duplicate weather conditions of the eastern seaboard. nor elevation of sea level, and humidity levels, as I live in northwest Nebraska. However, this little (or big) testing would still be interesting to see the results. :)
-
Low sights.
If the rifle is near ambient temperature then given the way that rifle matches were generally shot, maybe 5-10 shots over an hour or even 2 or 3 depending on how many shooters are present, the low sights are not a concern.
We need to understand that rifle matches of 1770-1870 were not necessarily what we do now.
In a match such as this light weight barrels seldom produce much mirage. Even a heavy barreled rifle, if its not taken indoors to load will not produce a lot of mirage if it does not start out warm enough from being inside or in a warm vehicle to cause a problem.
This is a 19th c painting titled Turkey Shoot at Saratoga Springs.
Many shooters, one firing point. Load your rifle, shoot your shot, wipe and reload for the next shot after everyone else has shot.
Mirage is not likely to be a problem.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FShooting%2FDSCN2650.jpg&hash=41cce4a4a912999320bb6e3b91a9a7b379b7ef0d)
Dan
-
Some thoughts on the testing.
Col Hanger, who was actually there. Tells us that for serious shooting the rebels generally shot from prone. Just like in the matches they shot.
People only shot offhand if they had to considering it " a poor test of the rifle". In matches they would shoot over a chunk often padded to prevent muzzle jump or "spring". Now its well known that shooting from a hard surface will often put the point of impact "off" compared to a softer surface. Riflemen in the 18th c apparently knew this.
This info can all be found, from period sources, in "The Frontier Rifleman" or "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution".
Dan
-
Good Evening Candlesnuffer,
Sorry it takes me a while to reply.
I’m afraid that with the VA taking over a year to get me an operation to reattach a detached retina, and a cataract in the other eye that though it blurs my vision in that eye, it isn’t quite large enough for them to take it out, shooting good targets is out of the question for me for a while – if ever again.
Good info on your rifle and loads. I agree a 100 yard target need not be used for this test. Adding the 50 yard increments in range that you mentioned is great.
Come to think of it, I like your plan of shooting one shot from each position and range. For both hunting and war, it is the first shot that counts. (Takes me back to 1974 when SSgt Carlos Hathcock taught me how to sight in my hunting rifle, when I was a young
Sergeant.)
While I agree with Dan that they went to prone for longer range when they could, sometimes you have to use kneeling and offhand to line up on targets when the ground between you and the target is not flat. Please do use a rest as they would have done it, if at all possible for kneeling and prone.
I look forward to hearing about your test and results.
Gus
-
Hello Gus,
I'd say you were taught by the very best on how to sight in your hunting rifle back in '74. SSgt Hathcock is a legend, and a national treasure in my humble opinion. I don't care what anyone says, he set the standard for today's expert marksmen!
I understand where you're coming from with your eye problems. I expect you'd rather be the one to be doing this test exercise, so I'll try to do justice with it.
Nice thing about shooting prone, a rise in the ground with your hand under the stock settles any vibration issues one might encounter. Same holds true for sliding one's rifle up over a log. Your hand between your stock and rest plays a key roll.
I think what I'll do over these coming winter months, is lay out a shooting program for this test. We've covered a lot of ground here.
Later Gus,
CS
-
Dan brings up a good point on the offhand shooting. There would be no reason to take a offhand shot unless one was retreating (something American Riflemen had to do a lot of during the ARW). Gus also brings up a good point on when an offhand shot may need to be taken.
I'd run some test today (as it's very nice out with little wind) however, my local range is full of high power rifle deer hunters checking their zero. I'm glad I don't hunt in that modern firearm rat race...
-
CS,
Some times one has to be careful about sliding a hand between the gun and rest, especially when one’s pulse rate is up. Then it causes the rifle to bounce around a bit. It’s better to use a rolled up coat or period pack to raise a rifle when needed in the prone position (if you have one), if you can’t find a log or other rest, because you are not introducing another variable into shooting. Using the hand to grip or support the rifle next to a tree can and often is better than not, but again, one has to be careful about raising one’s pulse rate. Some times it is better to grip a tree and place a coat or something between the hand and rifle to sort of balance out the effects of your pulse rate.
One thing I’m really interested to see in the results is something that is a bit hard to describe. Some people today call it the “maximum point blank range” of a rifle, or other descriptions. Basically I’m referring to the distance that when you sight your rifle on something, the trajectory of the ball causes the strike of the bullet to not be higher or lower than say 3 to 5 inches from your sights. This means you align the rifle sights “dead on” where you want to hit and the ball will actually hit the target in a within a 6 inch to 10 inch circle within a certain range. Then you don’t have to estimate range and you can shoot quickly and effectively without making a bunch of mental calculations. We know the “killing zone” of a white tail deer is a circle of about 8” and as long as your ball hits within that circle, it should be a good killing shot.
This is why I wrote about wondering at what range American Riflemen sighted in their rifles and suggested that they may have filed down the front sights to sight in at longer ranges during War Time.
The following link shows bullet drop of the same .530 cal. Round Ball fired at about 1,800 fps in two trajectory charts, BUT the difference is where the rifle was originally sighted. There is a noticeable difference when the rifle is sighted at 100 yards, vs 50 yards and where the trajectory of the ball will stay within a killing zone when you simply sight the rifle dead on and shoot. As noted in the text:
“Of course, the ball is exactly on target at 100 yards, but look at 125 yards. It has fallen only 3.44 inches below line of sight, as opposed to 8.15 inches in the 50 yard chart. So, the ball now deviates more above the line-of-sight , but less below the line-of-sight out to 125 yards. Most importantly, notice that the point Blank Range has increased from 56 yards to an impressive 115 yards. In this instance, that means that from the muzzle to 115 yards out, the ball will not deviate from line-of-sight by more than 1.9 inches high or low, or not outside a circle of 3.8 inches. It also means that out to 115 yards there is no need to guess where the ball will go, but that we can just point and shoot out to that range.”
http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html
Now, PERHAPS the American Riflemen already had their rifle sights set for 100 or more yards to take advantage of this in hunting. I don’t believe we have documentation on what range/s they sighted in their rifles, but it makes sense that knowledgeable/experienced riflemen would have fired their rifles enough to know where it hit at longer ranges and as someone suggested, they could do it by firing at tree trunks. Still, it seems reasonable to me that they zero’d their rifles at longer ranges than we often do today for 25, 50 and 100 yard matches.
On an 18th century British Soldier, the length of the average man’s torso was about 16” to 17”. Ideally then, you would want the maximum point blank range so the ball is not higher or lower than 8 to 8 ½” from your aiming point in the center of the torso within that range. Then all you have to do in combat is aim for the center of his torso and fire within that range, without having to do mental calculations that would be hard to do in combat. IOW, you would have fast and accurate shots by aiming dead center on the enemy’s torso. At longer ranges, you would aim at the enemy soldier’s head and the ball would drop down into the torso for a wounding/killing shot. What I don’t know is how far that range would be when aiming at the head and the ball would drop down inside the enemy’s torso. At that range, though, you would not have to GUESS about how far above the enemy soldier’s head you had to aim to hit him. That is a hugely distinctive advantage in combat.
As a youngster, we didn’t use high power rifles for hunting. However, we did use .22 rifles and Dad had the rifle sighted in so all we had to do was aim center within 50 yards and we would get the squirrels or rabbits. Heck, the rifle MAY have been pre-sighted at the factory that way.
Those of us who are “chronologically challenged” enough to have fired M1 Garands or M14’s in the Armed Forces may remember the “Battle Sight Zero” was taken from the 300 yard Prone, slow fire shooting position when all the Services were still teaching 500 yard shooting. With this sight setting, at short range, you just aimed at the bottom of the enemy’s torso. At ranges longer than 300 yards, you aimed at the enemy’s head. Now this wasn’t quite enough height for 500 yards, but it would still mean a hit in the torso around 400 plus yards and that is as long as most shots were taken. This is also why the M16 series of rifles have a “flip up” long range rear sight to shoot at longer ranges, after you have established your 300 yards Battle Sight Zero, and be more sure of a hit at longer range. That idea is not new, by any means. The Baker rifle we already mentioned was sighted in at 200 yards and had a period “flip up” rear sight for 300 yards.
Original Springfield Armory accounts stated that they wanted the acceptance standard for the .58 caliber rifle musket (used so much in the Un-Civil War) was it had to be able to consistently hit a man sized target at 300 yards and stop the charge of a horse at 500 yards. The front sight height to the rear sight causes period rifle muskets to shoot WAY high at 50 yards and high at 100 yards, to be able to do that. Of course the trajectory of the Minie Ball was not nearly as flat as modern suppository guns. They also had a flip up sight for longer range. In use, they taught soldiers to “Aim for the enemy’s knee’s” at very close range and aim for the enemy’s head at 300 yards. This is much closer to the period of the Baker Rifle.
Now most 18th century American rifles did not have a flip up rear sight, though they were more common on German Jaeger rifles dating earlier and later than 1740. Perhaps the longer American rifle barrels also showed they did not need a flip up sight within most hunting ranges?
Any way, it will be interesting to see what kind of trajectories you get between 150 yards and 300 yards.
Gus
-
Military rifles and hunting rifles are almost apples and oranges at least in how they are zeroed. A rb rifle sighted for 200 is not a good hunting arm. Where would one hold on a rabbit at 50 yards or even a turkey?
The German Jaegers needed a multi-leaf rear sight because most were 58 caliber or more and were rifles one turn in the barrel giving twist rates under 30" in most cases. The American rifle was a hunting rifle. I had low sights and since the barrel was generally "4 foot" the twist was 4 foot +-. This coupled with a smaller caliber gave the ability to produce much flatter trajectories that would give a point blank on deer to 110-120 yards and holding on a mans head at 200 would likely produce a hit as well. 300 will likely require about 6 feet of hold over depending on how the rifle is sighted and charged.
At 200 in good conditions a 54 caliber rifle will shoot into about 6" at 200 with a peep sight. I have no idea what the group size is at 300. The wind, even a slight breeze will blow the group at 200 and at 300 holding 6-8 ft of wind will be necessary with a 50 cal if the wind is 10 mph.
I went to Photobucket and retrieved one of the trajectories I had run on a website and this is what I get for a 50 cal at 1900 fps. Pretty high for 1777 but easily doable today.
My my 6 ft of hold over is too conservative. I was shooting the heavy rifle at pigs on the sil. range in Oct and was guessing at hold over. I got one pig in 5-6 shots and several near misses probably 2-3 would have his a man low. But had no good aiming point. This shooting off the plank rest we use. It is not as steady as prone with a rest but better than sitting.
No, prone is not always possible, but modern snipers seldom shoot offhand. The guy that Hanger describes was on a mill pond dam so he had an elevated position.
I KNOW that prone is not always possible. I hunt every season and sometimes offhand is all that will work. Sitting, depending on the terrain is often unusable or at best unreliable due to terrain or even the grass that is usually present. When hunting antelope standing is just not an option and sitting is bad enough at the ranges needed for a RB rifle.
Then there is the old saying "don't stand up during contact" This is not always workable either but very good advice none the less, I don't care what war it is.
Both Huddleston's "Colonial Rifleman.." and LaCrosse's "Frontier Rifleman.." are full of 18th and 19th C quotes by people who were there. While some of the newspaper accounts are probably propaganda and the authors state this, its hard to dispute personal observations from books and letters.
Dan
-
Morning Gus,
I have to say, you post some very interesting reads. Yes, I'm very familiar with the battle sight zero that was taught us with our M16 back in the '70's.
My flintlock of choice for this exercise - when I aim at an NMLRA 8 Ring Black target at 100 yards - I set my point of aim at 12:00 o'clock on the top of the black at 100 yards which allows me to stay within the black with all five shots and flirt with the 9 - 10 Rings (mid to low hits, with two to three (depending) 8 point counters). Of course this approach is because of the 25 and 50 yard shooting that is most common today with competition muzzle loading, and I use fixed sights.
Drop tables really don't do me a lot of good as most were developed at sea-level to under 900 ft above sea-level, and in area's known for high humidity. I live at 3800 ft above sea level with low humidity so there is to much variation to the tables for me to really draw any useful information from. I remember moving out here from Ohio, 25 years ago, and I had to re'zero every muzzle loader I owned do to the difference in elevation and humidity.
Anyway, have to get around to go to work. I'm off tomorrow so I hope I have a decent day to maybe do some shooting. I might take my front sight down a bit and get a closer 100 yard zero?
-
Good Grief.
I need to POST the darned table.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FShooting%2F50calRB.jpg&hash=cb82d7ee34d5339567c9520eac202f437f5d383c)
I live a 4000 and generally shoot at 4500 to 5000+ this table is for 4000 ft.
Never tried running a flintlock on my shooter app.
Dan
-
This was generated from my iPod running "Shooter".
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FShooting%2F50calcopy.jpg&hash=fb708fe25cc7ef75fe62834963ecfdc89151192b)
BC might be high. But its ball park for the .070 used in the previous one.
Dan
-
"A clapboard, with a mark the size of a dollar, was put up; they began to fire off-hand, and the bystanders were surprised, few shots being made that were not close to or in the paper. When they had shot for a time in this way, some lay on their backs, some on their breast or side, others ran twenty or thirty steps, and firing, appeared to be equally certain of the mark. With this performance the company were more than satisfied, when a young man took up the board in his hand, not by the end, but by the side, and holding it up, his brother walked to the distance, and very coolly shot into the white; laying down his rifle, he took the board, and holding it as it was held before, the second brother shot as the former had done. By this exercise I was more astonished than pleased. But will you believe me, when I tell you that one of the men took the board, and placing it between his legs, stood with his back to the tree while another drove the center." Force, Peter, American Archives, Series IV, vol. 3, page 2.
"Captain Cresap's Company of Riflemen, consisting of 130 active, brave young fellows...With their rifles in their hands they assume a kind of omnipotence over their enemies...Two brothers in the company took a piece of board, five inches broad, and seven inches long, with a bit of white paper, about the size of a dollar, nailed to the center, and while one of them supported this board perpendicularly between his knees, the other at the distance of upwards of sixty yards, and without any kind of rest, shot eight bullets successively through the board, and spared a brother's thighs! Another of the company held a barrel stave perpendicularly in his hand, with one edge close to his side, while one of his comrades, at the same distance, and in the manner before mentioned, shot several bullets through it, without any apprehensions of danger on either side. The spectators appearing to be amazed at these feats, were told that there were upwards of fifty persons in the company who could do the same thing; and there was not one who could not plug 19 bullets out of 20 (as they termed it) within an inch of the head of a ten penny nail; in short, to evince the confidence they possessed in their dexterity at these kinds of arms, some of them proposed to stand with apples on their heads, while others at the same distance undertook to shoot them off; but the people, who saw the other experiments, declined to be witnesses of this. Dunlap's "Pennsylvania Packet or The General Advertiser," Monday, August 28, 1775, No. 201,
cited in John G.W. Dillin, The Kentucky Rifle, p. 81-82.
The Virginia Gazette of July 25, 1775 carried an article claiming that so many riflemen had volunteered for the rifle companies that a shooting test was required to weed down the numbers. It was claimed that the judges chalked a drawing of a human nose on a board and sixty men were said to have riddled the mark from 150 yards away. Virginia Gazette, July 25, 1775, cited in Lynn Montross, Rag, Tag and Bobtail, p. 49-50.
To make sure that the message was loud and clear Washington ordered a spectacular demonstration of the abilities of his riflemen. With a huge crowd of spectators on hand Washington publically had his men fire at a seven inch diameter pole from 200 yards. The riflemen riddled the pole. Others fired at 250 yards. Some companies, at quick march, hit seven inch targets at 200 yards.21 Cline, Walter, Muzzle-Loading Rifle Then and Now, p. 35.
Tim Murphy As the battles around Saratoga raged, the British, having been pushed back, were being rallied by Brigadier General Simon Fraser. Benedict Arnold rode up to General Morgan, pointed at Fraser and told Morgan the man was worth a regiment. Morgan called on Murphy and said: "That gallant officer is General Fraser. I admire him, but it is necessary that he should die, do your duty." Murphy climbed a nearby tree, took careful aim at the extreme distance of 300 yards, and fired four times. The first shot was a close miss, the second grazed the General's horse, and with the third, Fraser tumbled from his horse, shot through the stomach. General Fraser died that night. British Senior officer Sir Francis Clerke, General Burgoyne's chief aide-de-camp, galloped onto the field with a message. Murphy's fourth shot killed him instantly. Murphy also fought at the battle of the Middle Fort in 1780
-
Military rifles and hunting rifles are almost apples and oranges at least in how they are zeroed. A rb rifle sighted for 200 is not a good hunting arm. Where would one hold on a rabbit at 50 yards or even a turkey?
This coupled with a smaller caliber gave the ability to produce much flatter trajectories that would give a point blank on deer to 110-120 yards and holding on a mans head at 200 would likely produce a hit as well. 300 will likely require about 6 feet of hold over depending on how the rifle is sighted and charged.
At 200 in good conditions a 54 caliber rifle will shoot into about 6" at 200 with a peep sight. I have no idea what the group size is at 300.
Dan
Dan, this is EXACTLY why one would file down the front sight of an American Longrifle when it was used for war, to get a sight zero at longer range to be able to hit an enemy soldier without having to use as much “hold over” at longer ranges and thus it would make it much easier to hit what he was shooting at. American Riflemen were no longer trying to hit turkeys or other small game at 50 yards, they would be trying to hit much larger targets at much longer ranges.
Let’s take the example you used of “the point blank range of 110-120 yards and holding on a mans head at 200 would likely produce a hit as well. 300 will likely require about 6 feet of hold over depending on how the rifle is sighted and charged.” If you cut down the front sight on that rifle, it would be easier to hit an enemy soldier at 300 yards without having to find an aiming point 6 feet above his head. Many battles were fought on farm land where they probably did not have a tree or something to aim at 6 feet or higher above an enemy soldier’s head. By cutting the front sight down, you didn’t have to worry about it.
Allow me to explain the tactical use of a rifle sighted for longer range in the time frame. In large pitched battles, the British and Hessians normally closed to around 100 yards or maybe 80 yards to fire a volley or volleys and then were given the order to charge with a bayonet. So 80 yards would have been rather “short range” for an American Rifleman. The idea is American Rifleman would have done better to open fire at 300 yards or more against the British Formations as they advanced. That way, one would have time to reload to take at least one more shot (or more) before the British closed to 100 yards. IOW, the American Riflemen would have been able to take out one, two or maybe more British Soldiers before they had even much hope of hitting the Americans by return musket fire. Now, even “loose order” formations the British used would have been great for the problems of windage variation at 200 or 300 yards or more. Even if one miscalculated the windage at longer ranges, the American Riflemen might or even often hit the soldier beside the one aimed at or even another soldier or two away, in the British/Hessian Formations.
I suggest, and I could be completely mistaken, this is WHY the British decided to sight their Baker Rifles at 200 yards and had a flip sight for 300 yards not even 20 years after they fought here during the Revolution. The British had been on the receiving end of such longer range shots before they closed to musket range and 20 years later, they had learned the value of having British Riflemen who would do the same thing to THEIR enemies. Yes, I know the British had Jaeger rifles in the French and Indian War and their own Pattern 1776 rifles that were used in most major battles by their Light Infantry, besides the limited use of the Ferguson rifles in the American Revolution. It could also have been from the use of their own rifles in the American Revolution and finding out it was more effective to so sight in their rifles at 200 yards with a flip up sight at 300 yards. However, military forces of the day normally learned more, or it really stuck in their minds better, which enemy tactics had been the most effective against them.
Now, of course it would not have been nearly as effective or even counter productive to have filed the front sights down on American Rifles that were NOT used in the open fields and farms of the Eastern Seaboard. In the areas where there were more woods, or broken ground or rolling hills, etc. – One might not even get a shot at much more than 100 yards and often less. In those areas, the way the rifles were normally sighted for hunting would have been far better to take quick/accurate shots.
Just for the record, I very much agree that no sniper or sharpshooter or marksman in the period would have taken an offhand shot at 200 yards or more unless he had to and preferably only with a rest taken against a tree or building or rail fence or some kind of vertical support, if he had to stand up to make the shot. Modern snipers don’t do it today without vertical support of some kind, unless there is no other way to take the shot.
As to moving targets, there is not much practice done even in much more recent times, on targets moving across your front. In 1972, they had a moving target range when I went through Infantry Training Regiment. It had “torso and head” size targets that moved at a walking pace across our front, at both 50 and 100 yards. For those of us raised in hunting with shotguns, it was easy to figure out how much to lead the targets very quickly
with our rifles. I thought that was really good training. However and for whatever reason (most likely the cost of running such ranges), they decided to quit using those targets only a couple years later. I was still arguing 25 years later that we needed to bring it back.
At the Marine Corps Scout Sniper Instructor School, to pass the course, one had to be able to hit 7 out of 10 shots on a silhouette target moving at walking pace at 700 yards. Now of course this was with the scoped M40A1 rifle AND from a prone firing position.
I think in our time period that most American Riflemen could have hit a deer walking across their front at 100 yards from the offhand position, but I’m not sure of ranges much further than that.
Gus
-
Dan,
Thanks for the drop tables. Very informative.
Gus
-
CS,
Thanks for the kind words.
I was very much an Anachronism from even my early days in the Marine Corps. When I showed up to begin my one year apprenticeship to build NM rifles and pistols at the Rifle Team Equipment Repair Shop at Quantico, VA in 1973 – they asked quite a few questions on our background. When asked what kind of shooting I had done, I included my shooting a .50 cal T/C Hawken. At that point, they acted kind of strange and said, “Oh, you are one of those muzzleloading guys…..” They often made cracks about it, though we later learned it was from jealoiusly about something they didn’t know. They told me Sergeant Mike Gingher from Indiana was also one and he became my dearest friend in life. He took me to Friendship, IN for my first trip in the spring of 1974. Mike was almost exactly 10 years older than I and had competed on the Primitive Range there for quite a few years at the National Shoots before I met him.
When it came time for all of us Armorers to shoot our Annual Requalification in the fall of 1975, we got with the Master Sergeant who was our Shop Chief and we decided to play a prank on the young Lt. who was running the range for us. Though Mike owned a good number of original and reproduction flint rifles, he showed up with an original Amoskeag Colt Rifle Musket and I had my original .41 cal. percussion Swiss Federal Rifle. We went up to the Lt. and asked him where we were supposed to go to draw powder, ball and caps to shoot the course. That got the Lt. flabbergasted and he said, “You can’t shoot those things here!” We replied of course we could as they were military issue rifles. That got him to stuttering. Then he said, “We don’t have ammo for those things.” Mike replied, “Yes, sir. Well, we figured that so we brought our own.” So the Lt. raised more objections and asked how we were going to shoot the 500 yard stage of fire. I showed him the adjustable sights on the rifles and then got down on the ground on my back with the forearm of the rifle supported by my knee and said that was the correct shooting position. Now, another Sergeant who was on the International Team, then told the Lt. that was a legal position for International Shooting. Finally, the light bulb went on over the Lt.’s head and he figured he “had us.” He said, “OK, just HOW are you going to shoot the rapid fire stages?” I told him, “No sweat, Sir, I will stand and fire while Sergeant Gingher is kneeling in front of me. After I fire, I will kneel in front of him to reload and he will stand and fire. We will do that while firing, advancing and reloading until we have both fired our 10 shots each.” At that point the poor Lt. was out of objections and was almost babbling about not knowing what he was going to do. At THAT point, our Master Sergeant drove up behind the ready lines in his station wagon and yelled to us to come get our M14’s and leave the poor Lt. alone. So we put our original rifles in the back of his car and took out our M14’s to shoot the course. Every Marine on the range, except for the poor Lt., was cracking up at this point.
When Mike and I were Armorers on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team, we strongly suggested using flintlock rifles to better teach offhand firing to Team Members. In NM High Power Rifle Competition, shooting well in the Offhand makes or breaks the shooters. They thought we were joking them, but we were completely serious. We finally got one senior GySgt from the Team to come shoot at the monthly blackpowder rifle matches we ran.
We offered him a flintlock, but he was a bit afraid of it, so Mike loaned him an original Percussion Rifle. We loaded it for him the first few shots and then he loaded it himself. After the days shooting, he came up to us and told us he now really understood what we had meant. Even though he was firing the original percussion rifle, the lock time was just slow enough it was a challenge for him to hold it well to shoot well. That GySgt was already a Distinguished Marksman, but he came to all our monthly shoots from then on for the offhand practice where he had to hold well for longer periods than a NM M14. He even got a few other Team Shooters to join us a few times. Now we never got the Team to buy Flintlock rifles for practice, but we made our point aboiut having to be a better offhand shot with them, than with modern rifles.
My interest in flintlock rifles includes HOW they might have used them in the 18th century to get the kind of accuracy reported in original accounts.
Gus
-
Here is another great story albeit an Englishman but nevertheless some great flintlock shooting of that era. If you are familiar with the BBC/PBS Napoleonic Wars series this is based on some of his exploits...
Rifleman Thomas Plunkett: 'A Pattern for the Battalion.'[1]
By Stuart Hadaway
Of the men who fought in the Napoleonic Wars, few are remembered except those whose high rank permits it. Our insights today into the lives and careers of individual members of the rank and file who made up the bulk of British Army in the Peninsula are almost solely restricted to those very few who later published diaries, letters or memoirs. Yet a few names and characters do live on in the pages of others' writings, achieving sufficient fame to be recalled by one or more of their comrades and thus passed on into posterity. Rifleman Thomas Plunkett is one of these rarest of characters. Although he left no record of his own existence, others of his battalion, the 1st Battalion 95th Rifles, have seen fit to set down this Irishman's career and achievements beside their own to leave us with a scattered picture of a man who was certainly a character, if not a hero.
An Auspicious Start
Mention of Plunkett can first be found during Lieutenant-General John Whitelocke's disastrous expedition against Spanish colonies in South America in 1807. The 95th, with the 43rd and 52nd Foot, formed a part of the Light Brigade (led by Robert Crauford in an inauspicious start to a later legendary partnership). This brigade was involved in the attack on Buenos Aires on 6 July 1807 which culminated in their being surrounded and forced to surrender to the Spanish. During the attack the 95th became isolated and besieged in the convent of St. Domingo by a vastly superior Spanish force. Although the only Rifleman-journalist present, Harry Smith,[2] quite understandably glosses over this most ignoble episode in the regiment's history, Verner[3] states that it is here that Plunkett first made his name. While on the roof of the convent Plunkett and a second man, Rifleman Fisher, "literally shot down every Spaniard who ventured to show himself within range." He quotes Plunkett as later claiming to have shot twenty Spanish soldiers, including an officer whose shooting of he was probably most remembered for at the time. This officer was carrying a flag of truce and coming to offer terms for surrender when Plunkett, ignorant of the flags meaning, shot him through both thighs provoking a Spanish barrage and assault. Again, for understandable reasons, Smith makes no mention of this.
But it is in the Peninsula War that Plunkett's name was truly made with his most famous act, indeed one of the most famous acts undertaken by any individual common soldier during the war. It occurred at the village of Cacabellos in the Galacian Mountains. A small village, nestled in a valley formed by the River Cua, it would have probably remained untouched by history had it not lain on the road to Corunna, and right in the line of retreat for Sir John Moore's army. On the 3 January 1809, the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles, forming the rearguard with the rest of the Reserve Division, stood on the southern ridge to cover the road to the village's double arch stone bridge, across which the British Army was retreating. Typical of the retreat's breakdown in discipline, even among the elite 95th, the previous day some of the Rifles had found a wine store and had become drunk and disorderly. The morning of the 3rd brought a courts martial for two Riflemen along with hangovers and further intoxication for others. Sir Edward Paget, the divisional commander and a true gentleman, had pardoned the two Riflemen sentenced to be flogged and returned the Rifles to the line only moments before the French advance guard came into view. Soon under attack from cavalry from the 15eme Chasseurs a Cheval and 3eme Hussards, the 95th fell back down the hill onto the bridge over which the tail end of the army was still retreating. Chaos threatened to break out with the French mixing it with not only the Rifles but also men of the Light Company of the 28th Foot and 15th Hussars on the approaches to and end of the bridge.
The Shot
Order was swiftly restored, however. The French commander, a dashing and talented young general called Auguste-Marie-Francois Colbert, seeing the rest of the 28th Foot and six guns of the Royal Horse Artillery formed up on the ridge on the far side of the Cua, withdrew his men to be reformed. Paget also pulled his forces back, placing the 28th across the road on the far side with the 52nd and 95th formed up on either side in positions to pour flanking fire onto the bridge. It was this position that Colbert unwisely, and fatally, decided to assault. Forming his cavalry into a column of fours he charged for the bridge. Seeing Colbert charging ahead of his men, distinctive because of his uniform and grey horse, Plunkett raced ahead of the line and onto the bridge. Throwing himself onto his back and resting his Baker Rifle on his crossed feet with the butt under his right shoulder in the approved manner, Plunkett fired at and killed Colbert. Apparently, having reloaded quickly, Plunkett then shot a second Frenchman who had ridden to Colbert's aid before dashing back to the British line.
The exact details of this act have always been rather sketchy. The distances involved, either of Plunkett's advance or of his shot, and Plunkett's motivations are vague. The main problem is with the unreliability or absence of eyewitness accounts. Three Riflemen left accounts, Captain Kincaid, Quarter Master Surtees and Rifleman Costello, yet none of these men were present and base their accounts upon regimental legend. Of those who were in the retreat, Lieutenant Smith and Rifleman Harris both leave comprehensive memoirs that give no mention of Plunkett. Harris, excusably, as he was with the 2nd/95th on the road to Vigo. Similarly, William Napier does not mention him in his history of the war, despite his family's heavy involvement in the Light Division. Basically, the only information available, although from apparently primary sources, is from secondary accounts and hearsay.
The Death of General Colbert
The Death of General Colbert
The main area of argument is the range at which Plunkett made the shot. Oman,[4] in stating that it was 'from a range that seemed extraordinary to the riflemen of that day', but giving neither an exact figure, nor any sources, seems to have started to establish the myth of Plunkett making an impossible shot, a myth frequently repeated by modern authors as proof of the prowess of the Baker Rifle and those who used them. Some popular literature even puts the range at 800 yards.[5] Other accounts are less emphatic about the range. Kincaid[6] records only that Plunkett took up an 'advanced position', and Costello[7] that he ran 'about a hundred yards nearer to the enemy'. As no record is left of how far the distance between the lines was at that moment, this does not help much. The most intriguing account is Surtees'. He says that Plunkett 'got sufficiently nigh to make sure of his mark', insinuating that the range was quite normal.[8]
All of these seem to put the emphasis on Plunkett's bravery in advancing so far forward as to make sure of his shot, rather than the range at which the shot was made. The debate probably began much later than the time of the diarists' writings, possibly brought about by the complete lack of evidence on this point. Even Rutherford-Moore,[9] after close analysis of both sources and the ground at Cacabellos concludes that the range could have been 'anywhere between 200 and 600 metres'. This covers the difficulties in balancing the various factors involved in the shot. Plunkett would need to be at a close enough range to hit a moving target despite his breathless and frozen state, yet still be able to beat the speeding cavalry to make good his escape. Another factor needs consideration if the story of his then downing a second Frenchman is to be believed.
The Escape
According to Surtees,[10] when Colbert fell the rest of the French were sent 'flying to the rear much faster than they advanced', which would solve the problem of Plunkett's escape, but Costello has Plunkett calmly reload and shoot the enemy Trumpet-Major as he rides to Colbert's assistance.[11] If this is true, than the ranges in question have again to be re-evaluated. For Plunkett to have time to reload before the Trumpet-Major could reach Colbert, Colbert must have been a considerable distance ahead of his troops. For the reloading of a Baker Rifle at least 30 seconds must be allowed. Although Plunkett's experience may have sped his loading, the intense cold and nerves must have equally slowed him down. Presuming that the second Frenchman rode forward to Colbert's aid, and that the pair were still ahead of the main body of Frenchmen when the second shot occurred, thus giving Plunkett the clear view he would have needed, Colbert must have been far in advance of his men, and thus much closer to Plunkett and the British line than otherwise may be thought, thus shortening the range.
All of this, however, is as ever, pure, and complicated, conjecture. It will never be known just what the distances and relationships were for Plunkett's shot or shots, or even if he actually fired the shots. Harman[12] fully discusses the difficulties in attributing any single shot to any single man on a Napoleonic battlefield, but in this instance the odds are probably in Plunkett's favour, and it is certain that Plunkett received the credit and became a most unlikely hero.
Plunkett's character was not one to ordinarily deserve such credit, indeed his motives for performing this act of daring have even been put down to monetary gain by Costello,[13] our main source for information on Plunkett's character. He recounts a story that as the French cavalry charged, Paget offered his purse to any Rifleman who could shoot Colbert, and, accordingly, paid Plunkett for the act. This story has been scorned, probably correctly, by Rutherford-Moore, based upon Paget's known gentlemanly and chivalrous personality, although he admits the possibility that Paget rewarded Plunkett for his act with money at the time.
The Man
Costello writes extensively about Plunkett, whose affect upon Costello probably stems from his role in Costello's introduction to the 95th. He recounts that his first parade with the 95th was a special ceremony to congratulate and promote Plunkett, who was held up and seen as shining example of soldierly conduct and courage to the rest of the battalion. On closer inspection, Plunkett seems a rather dubious hero-figure and role model to hold up for the army to follow. Most accounts of Plunkett's character are sketchy and short, but all agree on one point at least: that he drank. Surtees describes him as 'a noted pickle,'[14] while Kincaid says that he 'suffered from the curse of his country,'[15] at a time when even the Duke of Wellington himself was commenting on the drinking habits of his large proportion of Irish troops. Costello, as ever, gives more details and gives an extreme example of this habit which 'in its destructive consequences, calculated to counterbalance in a soldier a thousand virtues.'[16] While in camp at Campo Mayor, just after the battle of Talavera, Plunkett, a sergeant at the time, was caught drunk on parade by his captain, the Hon. Captain Stewart, and placed under arrest. Despite being a man 'noted for his good humour and humanity' when sober, in his drunken state Plunkett became bent upon revenge. As soon as he was left alone in the guardhouse, he barricaded the door and seized a rifle and vowed to shoot Captain Stewart. Forewarned, the Captain stayed away and Plunkett was persuaded to surrender by Lieutenant Johnston. Court martialled, he was sentenced to the loss of his stripes and three hundred lashes, of which he received thirty-five. The sentence was cut on account of his previous actions and popularity, with even the colonel, Sydney Beckwith, being reluctant to impose the punishment.
Although he seems to have behaved better after his flogging, being raised again to corporal 'notwithstanding little fits of inebriety,' his conduct overall seems to fit Wellington's sneer of his men being the 'scum of the earth', although he also fits the postscript of 'what @!*% fine fellows we've made of them.' All agree that he was 'bold, fit, [and] athletic'[17] man, in the 'prime of manhood; with a clear grey eye, and handsome countenance'. His drunkenness and occasional disorderly behaviour would be nothing unusual in Wellington's army, while his bravery, marksmanship and general appearance and bearing would mark him out as the, in theory, ideal Rifleman. Perhaps it was this overall appearance, along with the desperate need in the British army for heroes to trumpet after the horrors of the retreat to Corunna, that set him up for praise and a medal. Judging by the reaction of Costello, the action certainly had the required morale raising effect upon the new recruits in particular.
This appearance could also account for his inclusion in recruiting parties, where his antics certainly set him aside as a character. While recruiting in one of the 95th's regular haunts, Hythe on the South East Kent coast, Plunkett and his party were aiming to enlist as many of the Militia men stationed in the area as possible to reinforce the battalion after Corunna. This area, nearly opposite the French invasion camps at Boulogne, was an area of major defence works and troop concentrations. Regular battalions were always heavily supported by regiments of Militia, which the army saw as rich recruiting grounds - 48% of the army's recruits in 1809 were from the Militia - and a majority of Riflemen started off in the Militia (Costello in the Dublin Militia). Indeed, when the call went out for 350 more men for the Rifles, 1,282 Militia soldiers volunteered in only a few days.[18] To this end Militia colonels were ordered to place barrels of beer in the streets for all to dip in to, in order to further encourage their men to enlist. Doubtless fortified by the barrels contents and eager to impress the potential recruits, Plunkett climbed on top of an unopened barrel and began to dance a jig (his dancing skills were also well known, dancing the hornpipe on the voyage to Portugal to much acclaim from both soldiers and the crew.) Already attracting attention, all eyes turned to Plunkett as the head of the barrel gave way, leaving him up to his neck in beer. Demonstrating the quick wits encouraged by the 95th in its men, Plunkett heaved himself out of the barrel, and before all present clambered up a chimney in a nearby public house. Descending again, covered in soot, he cried 'd-n your pipe clay, now I'm ready for the grand parade!' Not only did he demonstrate the wit and elan of the 95th, but by turning the situation to emphasise the distinctive uniform and lack of 'pipe clay and button stick which were always hateful to the eyes of soldiers,' two of the very major appeals of joining the 95th, intelligence too.
Fit, intelligent, a crack shot and not above a little capering and even mild mutiny, Plunkett certainly seems to fit the very image of what we have come to see Riflemen as. He was lucky, too, and not only in getting away with threatening to shoot an officer, but also in not receiving a scratch in battle until at Waterloo, where a musket ball hit the peak of his shako and tore his forehead. The wound was sufficiently bad for him to be returned to England and put before the board at Chelsea Hospital. He was only offered a pension of sixpence a day after his many years distinguished service, however. This was a pittance, which Plunkett not only thought so but also told the officers of the board. The resulting argument resulted in his discharge without any pension. His character certainly seems to be one of which Richard Sharpe would have been proud; tough, bright and not adverse to putting senior officers in their place. Sharpe, however, probably would have actually been slightly envious of his ability to avoid bullets and blades!
However, Plunkett lived in the real world and was left homeless and penniless, and with a new wife. Shortly after Waterloo he had married what Costello describes as 'a lady remarkable for being deficient in one essential to beauty - she actually had no face.' This unfortunate woman had been caught in the explosion of an ammunition wagon at Quatre Bras, and her 'countenance was rendered a blue, shapeless, noseless mass,' although she was granted a pension of a shilling a day by the government. Making his way back to Ireland, he eventually rejoined the army, signing up for either the 31st or 32nd Regiment of Foot. Here fortune briefly smiled on Plunkett, for the commander of his district was his old commanding officer, Beckwith (now Sir Sydney.) Recognising Plunkett during a parade, Beckwith promoted him to corporal and later arranged for him to face another board at the Irish wing of the Chelsea Hospital at Kilmainham, where he was granted a pension of a shilling a day.
An Inauspicious End
Now discharged, Plunkett, with his wife, took advantage of a government offer to all veterans and emigrated to Canada with the guarantee of land and four years' pay in return for waiving their pension rights. He returned to England in less than a year, however, complaining that his land had proven to be wild and swampy and unusable, and penniless once more as he had forfeited his pension. This brave soldier continued to be typical of the men of Wellington's army for the rest of his life, rejected after years of service and left with little or no pension. Plunkett and his wife spent the rest of their years wandering the country selling matches, needles, and tapes to scratch a living. He died in Colchester in 1851 or 1852, falling over and expiring in the street. His public death and his wife's unfortunate appearance led to news of the event spreading through the town until it came to the attention of several retired officers who recognised Plunkett's name. They started a collection for the widow, totalling eventually £20, while an officer's wife personally financed his funeral and paid for the erection of 'a handsome tombstone'.
Thus ended the life of a remarkable man. Unable, despite his own skills, to leave an account of his life himself, he is never the less perpetuated in the writings of others. In many ways he is typical of soldiers and Riflemen of this period in his character, service, and in his retirement, yet also stands out from them as a charismatic and brave man. Whether he actually was the man who killed General Colbert, the salient reason for his remembrance, is unknown, and probably never will be. Whether the range of the shot was as great as is often claimed is also dubious, but perhaps we are missing the point. Instead of using very shaky evidence to argue out the merits and limits of Napoleonic weapons, we should follow the suit of Plunkett's contemporaries and instead honour the bravery and the skill of the man, and of the army he represents.
-
Great reading.
-
We have to remember a couple of things about the Baker. While some of the men in the rifle regiments may have had some shooting experience, with rifles, before getting to a rifle regiment it is unlikely the grew up with the rifle.
The Baker is significantly larger in the bore than the average Kentucky of the late 18th c which was probably under 54 caliber. Calibers larger than this cost more in powder and lead than the effectiveness justifies.
They were hunting rifles. If the rifleman was experienced then he did not need a zero past about 100-120 yards. With this zero if he was getting 1700 fps or so he could shoot to 200 pretty easily. Past 200 the drop gets so extreme that how its sighted don't mean much. When the velocity falls under 1000 the drag is somewhat reduced but in the descending trajectory the ball may be falling several inches in 10 yards and even more by 450-500 yards where some ball sizes will be getting very steep and hold over may be 20 feet. Shots past 500 with a 54 caliber ball are impossible according to a friend who has tried it.
In the FOREST, where many or these rifles were used on the frontier. 300 yards shots are not going to be common or even 200. But you better not miss some part of the "treed" adversary at 50 or 100 be it head, knee or elbow.
The Baker was not used the way the Colonial Frontier Rifleman used his rifle.
Sighted for 200 the 50 caliber ball is only 55" low by calculation at 300. But the rifleman is then stuck with a ball that is 12" high at 100 and 8" high at 50. It has no usefull point blank for anything but shooting at men on an open field.
The rifleman is better off with a rifle that shoots close to point of aim too 100-120 since from the writings shots past 150 were discouraged since the hit miss ratio fall off to the point that some were afraid the enemy would lose respect for the rifle. Some riflemen, who perhaps loaded more carefully and had better eyesight were likely very competent to 200. But there are so many variables at 300 with a RB that hits are equal parts luck and skill. Wind is a nightmare and cannot always be read. When there is no telescope especially.
The 50 caliber RB at 300 yards has 10" more drift (65") than my 260 Rem has at 1000 yards (calculated). At 300 the 260 produces 4.2" of wind drift in the same 10mph wind. So until shots are tried at longer ranges most shooters cannot appreciate this. A wind that we cannot call with a wind flag at 60 yards will drift a 50 RB 1-2". So unless shooting at a rank of men where wind drift can be taken up by a wide target shooting at 300 is not something that would be worth changing the rifles trajectory for. IMO anyway.
Dan
-
Dan,
Are you basing your range and accuracy reports from rifles with tight patch/ball combinations that require short starters to load? I assume you are, though I could be mistaken. If so, then during the period it seems American Riflemen would have been less likely to have gotten the accuracy you mentioned, because they did not use tight ball/patch combinations that we use today.
Do you have any thoughts on whether period iron barrels may have been more accurate or more forgiving of looser fitting ball/patch combinations? The reason I ask is because I’m not sure how much experience I have with iron barrels. I have only shot one or two original flint rifles and used the combination ball/patch/powder charge the owner had already found was best in those rifles. I’ve shot quite a few original percussion rifles, but don’t know if the barrels were iron or steel. One original .36 cal. percussion rifle I owned years ago was VERY forgiving of ball size and patch sizes and still shot as accurately as a person was capable of hoding it to 50 yards. I found this out when I forgot the balls I normally used and had to borrow some others of a slightly different size during one match. So I tried maybe three ball sizes with different patch material and the rifle STILL shot “like a laser beam” with whatever I used. Maybe it was the smaller caliber that was more forgiving?
Gus
-
I have read that iron was more forgiving than steel due to it's softer or different vibration patterns - something to that effect.
I suspect 'some' riflemen did indeed load their rifle with tight fitting ball and patch combinations than some people surmise - as target shooting was well played across the country throughout the ML period.
Their accounts of accuracy speak for these loads used, I would 'think' - or - there is something in the suggestion that iron barrels shoot better and are less picky of different loads than steel barrels.
If this is iron barrel theory is true - why aren't accuracy minded shooters having iron barrels made today?
-
Daryl,
I think wrought iron being softer would allow more harmonious vibrations in a barrel, that we refer to today as “harmonics.” One thing that is bad for accuracy in a rifle barrel NORMALLY is when there is a negative node that negatively affects vibrations. A negative node of vibration is like when you drop a rock in a calm water pound and the waves go out in all directions around it until the waves hit something like a dock post and that causes the wave to bounce back and make waves in the direction back towards where you dropped the rock in the water. In a muzzleloading barrel, the negative nodes are where the barrel is pinned or wedged to the stock. However, since the pins or even wedges don’t apply a lot of pressure, the amount of the negative vibrations are not nearly as significant as on other firearms. Also, the amount of metal you have in a muzzleloading barrel makes such negative nodes less important. I will stay away from modern rifle barrels as this is a muzzleloading forum, except to say that the most accurate modern rifles are bolt action rifles with “free floating” barrels so there are no negative nodes of vibration on the barrel.
True wrought iron (as in hand wrought or forged iron and not cast iron) is only being made at one place in the UK, today, and no where in the U.S. to my knowledge. That would make the barrels much more expensive. Hand forging a barrel, like they did in the period, would make them prohibitively expensive, plus there is always the SLIM chance a barrel weld would give way and burst on firing. The safety advantage today is using a steel with known properties and with an alloy and stock that can be certified.
In the period, one would have received the ball mold along with the rifle, so the ball size would not normally have been changed to get a tighter ball/patch combination as we can today. What they would have had to do to get a tighter ball/patch combination was use thicker patching material. However, to get the kind of tight ball/patch combinations we use today for the best target accuracy (normally) requires a short starter and there is almost no or no evidence them using short starters even in written accounts on Longrifles from the period and even during shooting matches in those days.
Further, I doubt anyone would have used a short starter in fights/battles/ war except for the first shot, even if they had had short starters. After the first shot, one would have wanted to reload as quickly as possible and of course that tight fitting of a ball/patch combination would have seriously slowed or even stopped the reloading process as the barrel fouled more with each additional shot. Also, the point of impact of the bullet would have changed when using a tighter ball/patch for the first shot and going back to the normal ball/patch combination they used for hunting or normal use of the rifle, for follow up shots.
The problem for 18th century accuracy of Longrifles is there is virtually no evidence of them having used short starters for hunting. Since they didn’t use them for hunting, they would not have used them for war, as in the discussion of this thread. Maybe some day someone will find documentation of using short starters in a common manner for Longrifles, but until they do, short starters seem to have been a 19th century innovation and generally only for the target range.
Gus
-
Gus,
I'd kind of like to hear what, George Sutton (Centershot / Mr. Flintlock) of Shooting USA has to say about an undertaking of making these kind of long range shots. I'm guessing he'd have some insight on all this. After all, making the (what seems like impossible shots) is what he does. He's a member here. He goes by Centershot...
-
CS,
Having someone who has done a lot of long range shooting with muzzleloaders would be a welcome addition to this thread. Even more so if the ball/patch combinations used was not as tight as to require short starters, to give a more accurate picture of true accuracy potential in our period.
Before this thread began, I’m not sure I ever read that American Riflemen were not allowed to shoot at distances beyond 150 yards, because they missed too much. I find that VERY telling about the real accuracy of Longrifles used in the period. Not having read that original account myself, I wonder if the original documentation meant when the wind was blowing hard or there was more fog on a certain day or low light or extreme heat or cold? All of these things would have been detrimental to accuracy.
I’m reminded of the environment we had for the weekend of the 125th year Anniversary of the Battle of Cedar Mountain near Culpepper, VA in August 1987. This reenactment was also special to reenactors as we actually reenacted the battle RIGHT on part of the original battlefield. On Friday afternoon, we went out for what was supposed to be a short “tactical” or “Civil War War game.” Even though we were well used to wearing wool uniforms in the Virginia summer heat, the 101 degree temperature that day and the humidity index was well over 100 and some of us did not make it even to the tactical due to heat problems and the tactical was canceled shortly after it began. Accurate long range shooting on that day would have been hard for shooters to do. The BIG tactical began the next morning, though.
Morning reveille in the Federal camp went at 3:00 AM so they could get up and take up their positions first. Reveille was supposed to go at 0400 in the Confederate camp, but there was so much racket with them trying to get the Federals up on time, we all awoke early. We moved out one hour after the Federals while it was still dark. When the sun came up and even though it was bright, there was so much fog that you could not see anything 50 yards in front of you and it stayed that way until well after 10:00 AM. That environment was almost surreal and would have made any long range shooting an impossibility.
In our time period, the Battle of Monmouth stands out in my mind. Even though it was fought in New Jersey, it was so hot that heat casualties and heat caused deaths were almost or as great as normal battlefield casualties. Though some of those casualties would not have happened had they had more water available for the troops on both sides, the heat still would have made long range shooting harder on the marksman and there would have been severe heat mirage on days like that, making long range shooting more difficult.
The point I’m trying to make is that weather and other environmental conditions would have caused accuracy problems when trying to make long range shots, both by how the bullet’s flight path was affected and by how the environment affected the shooter. Maybe that is another reason why they were ordered not to take shots beyond 150 yards?
Finally, something we don’t think about much today is how good the eyesight of the average Rifleman was, because corrective eye glasses are so common today and so uncommon for most people of that time period. Because they had no way to precision grind eyeglass lenses for an individual’s prescription, a lot of people back then surely would have needed eyeglasses for the best vision.
I’m sure the BEST marksmen with the Longrifle had 20/20 or better vision, but I doubt that good of vision was more common then than today. There is no way of knowing for sure, but Tim Murphy almost certainly had 20/20 or better vision or he could not have been "able to hit a seven inch target at 250 yards” as had been recorded from “Timothy Murphy: Frontier Rifleman". New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center. Retrieved 2008-02-12.” as mentioned in the link below. I ASSUME that the best Riflemen chosen, and who passed strict shooting requirements in the Rev War when mentioned, most likely had 20/20 vision or near it, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)
The reason I think about how good their eyesight must have been is because of the astigmatism I’ve always had that kept me from being a National Match shooter and the fact the best shooters on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team over the years did not need prescription eyeglasses. Carlos Hathcock and others had eyes like an Eagle. I had marksmanship fundamentals down well enough that I was the 9th Marine in history to have fired a 249 out of 250 on the requalification course at Quantico, VA of 200 through 500 yards and no one had fired a 250 when I retired in 1997. Still, my eyeballs were not good enough to be a National Match shooter.
Gus
-
Gus, let me throw this out here. Is it possible that the reported long shots were actually taken from a known measurement of all foot soldiers of the time, measured in Paces, rather then Yards? Perhaps the word "Yard" replaced the word "Pace" in accounts in newspapers of the time or the articles rewritten by today's historians and the words replaced for our understanding, with those re'writing history not understanding the difference between a "pace and a yard" distance?
(a single step in marching, taken to be 30 inches for quick time (120 paces to the minute) in both the British and US armies)
If shots were reported by "Paces" then later the word "pace" replaced by "yard" - here is the scale;
120 Paces = 100 Yards (later replaced by yard - 120 yards)
180 Paces = 150 Yards (later replaced by yard - 180 yards)
240 Paces = 200 Yards (later replaced by yard - 240 yards)
150 Paces = 125 Yards (later replaced by yard - 150 yards)
200 Paces = 167 Yards (later replaced by yard - 200 yards)
250 Paces = 208 Yards (later replaced by yard - 250 yards)
300 Paces = 250 Yards (later replaced by yard - 300 yards)
350 Paces = 292 Yards (later replaced by yard - 350 yards)
400 Paces = 333 Yards (later replaced by yard - 400 yards)
I often have wondered why "foot soldiers" of the ARW time would report measurements in "yards" rather then their drilled in training measurement of the "pace" which the "pace" was way more prevalent to them with the weapons they went to war with and with the tactics of the day.
Just throwing this out there...
-
CS,
You may be onto something there. I don’t know what they used as a “reference point” to estimate distance. The common military pace today is 30”, but in the 18th century drill manuals, it was much SHORTER. Both Bland’s and Cumberland’s British Drill Manuals list a pace as being about 24 inches/2 feet, as the regulation for the “pace” between files and ranks being between 2/12 feet or 1/6 paces. So if they used military period paces, the distance would have been up to 1/3 less than the same number of yards. IOW, 300 military paces was actually 200 yards.
Another common period length measurement was the Rod at 16.5 feet. However, I don’t know how familiar most people would have been with that to estimate distances and to my modern mind, that sounds like a nightmare to try to estimate distance. Grin.
We know surveyors of the period used surveying chains to measure distance and they were done usually in 50 yard length chains or multiples of that length. Frontiersmen would probably have been familiar with them to some extent.
One unit of measure that was very commonly used in the 18th century was the Furlong, which was and still is 220 yards. A “Half Furlong” at 110 yards would have been familiar to many people and just so happens to be the distance Dan has mentioned as the “maximum point blank range” of Longrifles at 110 to 120 yards.
Come to think of it, I have read at least once or twice in original accounts of distance having been recorded in “rifle shots.” MAYBE that was in half furlong lengths per “rifle shot? “
Gus
-
Artificer and CS, you can sure open cans of worms.
Rods was the typical measurement in many if the longer distances rifle matches of the 18th c. Till Civil War times anyway.
20 rods, 40 rods and more 40 rods being 220 yards. The Short-range, Mid-Range and Long-Range matches of the 1870s onward were in yards from 200 to 1000 or perhaps more.
220-440 yards became common int he Picket Bullet era.
Paces? Historically its been 30". But if I step off something I know that if I stretch my step I can get pretty close to 100 yards over a 100 steps or so. I don't do this very often anymore. What someone in 19th or 18th c America called a pace? Maybe 30 " maybe?
Dan
-
Dan, is a rod 20 feet?
-
16.5 ft, 1/4 of a surveyors chain, 1/320th of a mile according to Wiki
Dan
-
16 1/2 feet by 1/2 mile is what us farm boys call an acre in case anyone wants to know. ;D
-
If an actual diary of a soldier from the ARW (either side), or a field report, that neither have been rewritten by some historian who is telling us in the 20th century what "they" meant to say in the 17th century - then we may have some better insight on this entire subject - which is at this point (IMHO) open to interpretation.
I am familiar with the Rod measurement, and have heard, but never put much thought into the Furlong (unless it's horse racing).
I'm 5'9" tall and I measured my own Pace to be;
Slow Pace = 26 inches
Fast Pace = 31 inches
I could almost see an average Pace of the ARW soldier being in the 24 to 29 inch neighborhood, so 30 inches may not be over stating?
Pretty interesting stuff.
So lets think about this for a minute. You have won the field and you made a long shot that downed an enemy officer. Since you won the field and you want to know how far you made your shot from, which "Pace" speed would you use to "Pace" off that distance? My guess is it would be the slower to maybe even a "middle" pace, (in my case 28.5"), while in the pace of the ARW day, 26.5"...
Food for thought?
-
Dan,
Yeah, I know we can open cans of worms, but isn’t that how we come to a better grasp of knowledge? Grin.
OK, I stand corrected on the length of period surveyor’s chains. I know I had read or heard they were 50 yards, but after more research, they were really 4 rods (at 16.5 feet per rod) or 66 feet or 22 yards long. (An acre is equal to 10 square chains composed of say by 1chain by 10 chains or 2 chains by 5 chains, for example.) A Furlong was 10 chains at 220 yards and a Half Furlong was 5 chains (or 20 rods at 16.5 foot per rods) or 110 yards. Therefore the measurement of ½ furlong or 20 rods pretty much agrees with what you have stated as the point blank range of a period rifle.
You are correct the average length of the modern pace is 30” and has been the standard length of a military pace since at least WWII when one looks up the Drill Manuals. However, Hardee’s Drill Manual circa 1855 states that a pace THEN was 28 inches. Once again, 18th century British Drill Manuals (both Blair’s and Cumberland’s) set the distance of a pace at 22”. So a military pace in our time period was only 22” or 2/3’s of a yard. In the 18th military and even when I went to Boot Camp in 1971, they literally or figuratively pounded the distance of a pace into us – at whatever distance the pace was at that time, to perform all the marching movements taught to soldiers, Marines, etc.
My personal stride is a good bit longer than 30” and fellow Marines often commented on it when we did “route step.” However, 42 years after Marine Corps Boot Camp, I still use a 30” step/pace when marching OR estimating distances.
Now how did/does the military judge distance when there is no more accurate measuring device? They “pace it off.” They do this because soldiers are taught to hold a basic and uniform pace in marching and thus it is a bit more accurate estimate of distance than judging by eye. So if one paced off 300 of the common 18th century Military Paces at 22” per pace, then the distance would only be 200 yards.
Now, we don’t know that the ranges mentioned in original military accounts of the distances that Riflemen took their shots were originally done in paces and then later mistakenly written down as yards. Actually, we don’t know for the most part how they actually measured the distances and then converted them to yards to write them down. What would be extremely useful for us is if we knew HOW they measured the distance (by estimate or by actually measuring devices) and WHO actually did the measuring for the shots fired and recorded that distance.
Artillery or Engineer Officers of the period were well experienced at estimating ranges in yards. If either of these Officers did the measuring, we could be pretty confident they recorded the true ranges in original accounts. Artillery Officers, especially, had to know how to accurately estimate range in a hurry and used this method.
“An early 18th century method of obtaining range by rough survey: An officer laid out a sub-base of 25, 50 or 100 yards to form a right-angled triangle, if possible, or if not an isosceles triangle. T=target, G=gun, GB=sub-base. He then measured angles G and B by plane table and sight rule. With these data he was thus able to deduce the angle T and calculate GT. “
http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/smooth3.htm
Time to open a final can of worms for this post. Grin. Though Tim Murphy often has been given credit for making two vital 300 to 440 yard shots at the Battle of Saratoga, it seems he was not named as the person who did it and actually 12 riflemen were ordered to shoot at the British General Fraser. Instead, it might have been an old man at a distance of only 66 yards, who fired the fatal shot.
http://www.corporatestaffrides.org/files/Murphy.pdf
I think it would be interesting to investigate other written accounts of Long Range Shooting in the 18th century to see if the distances mentioned were indeed fact and not just legend.
Gus
-
http://www.corporatestaffrides.org/files/Murphy.pdf
Gus, after reading pages 1044 - 1045 (above link), I see the mention of a Rifleman's rifle most likely being sighted in at 100 yards. I believe I will do this with my rifle I plan on using to run some test in the Spring, but I may go for a "two inches" high 100 yard zero to allow a little buffer zone.
I believe I will increase my load to 60 grains of 3fg to get to the 1750 (1755) fps muzzle velocity. The two inches high at 100 yards with my .45 caliber should help offset the difference in drop compared to the .50 caliber mentioned in the link above. I could actually use a 4" high zero to get even closer, but I personally don't want that wide of window, from 2 to 4 inches.
Again, referring to the link above, I read the General Frazer shot as a (1 in 12) chance of probability. Now I do find it odd that if the leadership of the Americans didn't want their Riflemen taking shots beyond 150 yards (earlier post) because of the hit probability, why did they assign 12 Rifleman to take out Frazer? Granted, Frazer would have been an equivalent target of a WWII enemy carrier at the battle of Midway, so an opportunity to take him out would have to be acted on.
Pretty interesting stuff! :)
-
CS,
I like your analogy of taking out General Frazer was similar to taking out a carrier at Midway. The Americans realized that if they could take him out, it would be an extreme blow to the British and it was even more so than I think they thought it would be before he was shot. Anyway, when a target is that important, it made sense they assigned plenty of Riflemen in hopes of at least one of them hitting him when he was beyond the normal range or at the extreme range of accuracy for a rifle. IOW, not a lot of risk to the Americans if they didn’t hit him, as opposed to how much they stood to gain by taking him out. The Americans were counting on luck and sheer numbers of shots fired at General Frazer, as much as the accuracy of each Rifleman.
What it does tell us is how much “the story changed” from the actual battle and into legend. Differing later accounts said there were maybe three or four Riflemen shooting at General Frazer and down to just two Riflemen or just Tim Murphy alone. Instead the actual numbers of Riflemen who were ordered to fire at General Frazer were twelve. Now, Tim Murphy MAY have actually been the one to have hit General Frazer, but it seems that can’t be proven. Further, the deeds that Tim Murphy actually did in the rest of the war were so remarkable, it doesn’t matter to me whether he actually made that shot on that day or not.
Gus
-
It seems to me that the idea of a historical confusion between yards and paces might not be justified.
Is it not the case that during the War of Independence the Colonial forces were nearly all militia? If so, it seems unlikely that many men would have spent the necessary hours drilling on the parade ground, learning the standardised movements that allowed European generals to easily manoeuvre blocks ranks and files of men around a battlefield. Without that background, they wouldn't be given to estimating distances in paces.
So perhaps its simply down to people being not very good at estimating distances in yards without specific training in doing so. A man who was familiar with his rifle could be entirely capable of making good decisions about how much hold over to apply without worrying about numbers.
And just to confuse the issue, some of these long shots must have been taken in situations where professionally trained officers had determined the range for artillery purposes...
Hope you don't mind me chipping in. I have been really enjoying this thread and it just seemed a point that might have been overlooked.
-
The Romans set the "pace" at something over 5 ft if the internet is right. But they measured from where the heel left the ground to where the same heel touched the ground again.
Modern "paces" are 30" +- as a standard. 28" is ball park for todays measurement.
22" might be for some parade field operation but in the real world it would be very troublesome for me to step 22" and I am not all that tall.
You are right cans of worms tend to increase the knowledge.
So far as the Rifleman being given a distance. This is possible. But a good rifleman would look, think I need to hold about here for a hit and go for it just as I have done for years hunting.
Dan
-
So far as the Rifleman being given a distance. This is possible. But a good rifleman would look, think I need to hold about here for a hit and go for it just as I have done for years hunting.
Dan
I agree completely with this, Dan.
A good test of skill would be a range set up with unknown distances to the Rifleman, as the Rifleman would then have to determine his shot through what his hunting experiences had/has taught him.
DaveP, all comments and views are welcome.
I understand what you are saying, but I do believe that colonial militia did meet on Sunday's (after church maybe) to drill, before the war, and had done so for quite some time, no doubt before, during, and after the French & Indian War.
Jumping a head to the ARW, Gen. Washington wanted a "European" type Army, something he finally got during the training at Valley Forge. I think if we look at just the American Riflemen alone, yes, there was very little discipline and training as they were mostly woodsmen which made them "special forces" type units to a degree who could support, shadow, scout, and out right make hit and run raids on the enemy, the Kings men and hostile Indians.
They (the Riflemen) may very well have exaggerated the distance's shots had been taken at. Not that hard to imagine that they did do this after the battle while setting around in camp.
However, I believe there are some accounts of the British officers themselves reporting the shots made by American Riflemen, and they would be very aware of the Pace distance as it was a battlefield maneuver of known distance and speed to the foot soldier.
-
Snuffer, I agree that that would be a great test. But the shooter would need to know the size of the target...eg: a man's silhouette. We do a similar thing on our trail walks, emulating hunting situations, where you don't know the distance to the target. And what makes it more difficult, is not knowing how big the target is. As an example of this, we have a fouling shot target right at the beginning of our trail, that doubles as a first shot for the pistol trail. It is a life sized fox silhouette of steel. A duplicate of the same target hangs down a narrow cut through the trees at position #13, and everyone swears it is the size of a coyote, or even a wolf - not a fox. The distance is a laser'd 92 yds. It is a fulfilling shot when you make it.
-
DaveP,
WELCOME to you or anyone who wants to join in the discussion.
The point you made about militia not estimating range by military paces is well taken and I’m sure correct. Had the Militia written the reports, the distances would probably not have been in military paces, BUT most of the militia could not read or write with the exception of the Officers (and not all of them could read and write). We know that Dan Morgan could barely read and write when he moved to Virginia as a Lad, but I’m not sure how much advanced in those skills by the battle of Saratoga. It doesn’t sound like he made out the report, but I can be mistaken. Of course some tradesmen in the militia could read and write, but they would not have been very familiar with rifle shooting. So…… we add further conundrums to our puzzle on the reports themselves, such as the following.
Did the person who wrote the report actually estimate or pace off the distance or did he just write down what others told him? Of course military reports of the day could be as factual or as fantastic or false as the person writing the report wanted to make it – just as they are today. However, there was a general sense that reports had to be as accurate as possible to be worthwhile, just as they are today. I tend to believe that someone doing a Military Report on something as important and unusual as killing such a highly renowned British Officer as General Fraser, and considering how that so tilted the battle to the Americans, would have “checked the facts” by pacing off the distance, if the distance was actually stated in the report and at such extreme range. Of course I could be mistaken and it is possible that the person just used the estimated distance that was given to him. Further, it seems in the case of the Timothy Murphy shot, the actual distance may not or was not recorded in the original report at all AND the distance of that shot was later recorded at ranges of 300 to 440 yards?!! Further, at least one account states the General Fraser was hit when his horse was at full gallop at that range??!! (This last one, especially. sends my BS meter going off with full alarm.)
Now I could see where a Rifleman who was good at hitting from 150 to 200 yards might have hit General Fraser at 300 yards, IF his horse was not galloping. I personally discount the 440 yard distance, because the chances of Tim Murphy EVER taking such a shot in hunting or target shooting at that range are so astronomically small, he would not have known how much to hold over to hit at that range. BUT, there is one thing that was in Tim Murphy’s favor no one has mentioned yet and that was he was ordered to climb a tree to make the shot. Now, why was that order given and what advantages did it hold?
Well, the first reason is obvious. Tim would have been able to look above the clouds of black powder smoke in front of the British when they fired and thus see General Fraser more clearly behind the British ranks. But here are some additional reason I don’t think many people think about. When one is up a tree and looking down at the ground to hit a target, it is easier to find a spot on the ground behind the target to aim at, with the correct amount of elevation hold over. This greatly improves one chances of hitting at longer ranges when having to hold over the target. When the ground is level between you and the target, it is almost impossible to aim at something that will give enough hold over to hit your target, unless there is a tree or hill behind your target. Now, Tim would also have had to aim lower than normal because he was shooting at a downward angle. I’m sure he knew from hunting that when shooting uphill or downhill, one has to aim low on the target or you will miss it. Taking that into account, he would not have had to hold over as much when shooting down from a tree as he would have had to do if shooting across level ground. I suggest that would have aided him in hitting at longer ranges. Finally, when looking down from a tree, it is easier for one to see where a missed shot hit the ground and thus make it easier to “correct” your hold over/aiming point to hit on the next shot, even though one was still looking through black powder smoke from the muzzle of one’s rifle. When the ground is level between you and the target at that range, it is much harder to see where a missed shot landed.
Gus
-
The Murphy shot, is fully doable. I have described shooting at 285 yards with a 50 cal rifle at a man silhouette from prone.
Its simply not that hard to hit a man at about 300 with a decent RB rifle. So far as people never needing to shoot that far. On the frontier with the Native and English problem shooting 200 plus over a stockade is not beyond imagining. Some of the natives had rifles and unlike many of the western natives could shoot well.
So how does one deal with THIS threat. Perhaps a native getting balls inside the walls from 200 yards out from a tree top?
In
These guys shot a lot. They shot matches even at times when ammo was tight. Thinking they never tried shooting 200-300 yards is not realistic.
They didn't have anything else. They didn't know anything else. To me having shot to 300 a few times with 3 different 50 caliber rifles I can tell you that is 3-4 shots there will almost surely be a hit. Nor is power lacking to kill a man.
But today when people never shoot past 50 or 100 with a RB rifle even 150-175 seems like a mile.
We on the other hand have little reason to learn what our rifle do at 200 or 300. I have a number of rifles that are pretty scary at 400-600 yards and I may be shooting a couple of them at 1000 (weather permitting) in early Nov in a match. Until a few years ago I never shot past 150 yards or so. But I got curious about the Murphy shot one day... I was clueless but a sighter or two in a dusty area 20 yards to one side gave me a "drop" one of three subsequent shots hit the silhouette.
I will sound like a broken record but readers here who have not read Huddleston "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution", LaCrosse "The Frontier Rifleman" and De Witt Bailey "British Military Flintlock Rifles" chapters 5 and 6, NEED TO.
In 1756 Edward Shippen writing that in an engagement with savages he would rather have a rifle than a SB "..for at 150 yards distance with one I can put a ball within a foot or Six Inches of ye mark..." So in 1756 this guy knows he can likely hit a man at 150 yards. Now has he PRACTICED or at least shot at this distance? Sounds like it.
In the west in the 1840s-50s some rifles (at least one original a friend shot) were apparently sighted for 150 yards. But this is not Pennsylvania or Kentucky. And shots at 120-150 are not unknown even today when there are far more trees.
Dan
-
Dan,
A description of firing a .50 cal. rifle at 285 yards in modern times does not give us a true account of 18th century accuracy, because no doubt you used a much tighter ball/patch combination than what was used in the 18th century. Now, if that account or accounts was/were from using a patch/ball combination that could be rammed down the bore without a short starter, then it would be more consistent with the 18th century. Of course such a looser fitting ball (typical of the 18th century) will not be as accurate as a modern load where different ball sizes and different types and thicknesses of patching material were tried and used to find the load to get the most accuracy.
Tim Murphy was deemed exceptional in his day as having been able to reliably place a ball in a 7” target at 250 yards, by at least one written account. This is important to remember that it WAS deemed exceptional to have so written it down. So I have no doubt he could have made a 300 yard shot on a man mounted on a horse and not moving. However, while perched in a tree - hitting a man on a horse at a gallop at 440 yards (as was recounted in at least one of the accounts of the Tim Murphy shot) is pure fantasy or deliberate propaganda. Such a shot would have been almost unbelievable had he been prone on the ground and would have able to move enough to lead the horse/rider enough AND had he KNOWN how much to lead the horse/rider and wind and other conditions been perfect that day.
Can you give an historic example of where there was a fort or fortification where Native American Riflemen (or Tory Riflemen or Canadian Riflemen) were firing at 200 yards and consistently hitting the Americans inside so that firing from 300 yards was deemed useful or necessary to PRACTICE enough at that range to be effective? There are no accounts of such long range rifle matches to my knowledge, but perhaps you have documented examples I don’t know about?
A documented example of rifles used against a fort was when George Rogers Clark took Fort Sackville at Vincennes, IN in 1779.
“Fire commenced on the fort's gun ports and any other openings that could be identified. The fire was so accurate that the defenders were forced to close the gun ports and thus lost the use of their cannons. When some tried to reopen a gun port, the fire wounded six of the British, one-sixth of Hamilton's regulars.”
Now that was good shooting BUT what is often overlooked was at what range the Riflemen were shooting from before they opened fire:
“By now Bowman's men were about 120 yards from the main gate and other sharpshooters were within 30 yards of the northeast palisade. The rest were taking cover behind houses, barns and natural barriers.”
This range was WELL within the 110 to 120 yard point blank range of the American Longrifle. George Rogers Clark knew better than most what the accurate range of the American Longrifle was and he used that knowledge (along with cunning and other tactics) to get close enough to make their shots count. They were not shooting at anywhere close to 200 yards and some were within Smoothbore Musket Range at 30 yards.
Of course the real problem for anyone who wishes to submit that 300 or more yard accuracy was common for American Riflemen in the 18th century, runs smack into the brick wall that American Riflemen were ordered not to take shots beyond 150 yards (in the American Revolution) because they MISSED too much beyond that range on the battlefield where it counted. Had they HAD such experience shooting beyond 200 yards at Rifle Armed Native Americans, as had been suggested, they would not have missed so often beyond 150 yards.
Gus
-
How can we be sure the real marksmen among the American riflemen were not using a tight ball/patch load? The most common patch lube of the time was bear oil-not bear grease- and though I have never used any bear oil, I believe it to be "slicker than owls**t". Just because we don't have a signed and dated short starter doesn't mean they didn't exist. Seems as if we are doing at lot of "supposing" and "what ifs" in this discussion.
Be Well,
Bill
-
Bill,
The “what ifs” and “supposing” in this case is on the side of a tight fitting patched ball that would require the use of a short starter in the 18th century.
There is little to no documentation that short starters were used until the 19th century. Though powder horns and bags were made commercially in profusion in the 18th century, there is no record of anyone making short starters. I realize someone could have whittled one from a chunk of wood, but if that was common, where are the records to confirm that?
I also realize that there are very few shooting pouches that can be accurately dated to the 18th century so we can’t take too much from that, but there were no short starters found in them. The archeological record has not turned up short starters from the 18th century, either.
Further, cloth was not available in the profusion of weaves and thicknesses in the 18th century that was more common even by the 1850’s. Not only that, but they did not have precision measuring devices to measure the cloth. They almost certainly had to try scraps of different pieces of cloth until they found the one that worked best. However, the next time they went to buy cloth, that cloth may not or would not have been available. So did they weave cloth especially for patching material? Again, no record of that.
Finally, in an Essay on Shooting, printed by T. Cadell, London, 1789 (an original source document Gary Brumfeld often mentioned and listed in his website) does not mention the use of short starters even for “the German Method” of loading a ball wrapped in fustian (cloth). He did go quite into detail on the Ferguson rifle used in the Rev War. It is pretty telling that had short starters been in common use, Cadell would have mentioned it as he spoke to the common methods of loading a rifle in other countries.
Gus
-
Here is an interesting read.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4786-the-american-rifleman-in-the-revolutionary-war
Couple things caught my eye while reading this. One remark about Riflemen being able to reload in 30 seconds. Actually I have no problem doing this, and that is with an extra step of using the short starter.
Also, I like that the author does use the word "pace" in his writings, though whether he drew this from research, I don't know?
-
Researching the subject on the forum more, I found some of Dan’s earlier comments:
“Cooke's hunting pouch (1761-1842) has a priming horn, a bullet board and a starter with it. When did he start using the bullet board? In 1775 or 1810? We have no way of knowing. Same for the priming horn. But I bet it was while he was young.”
Dr. Tim Boone asked in reply:
“Where did you see this presumably verified exhibit?? "Cooke's hunting pouch (1761-1842) has a priming horn, a bullet board and a starter with it. When did he start using the bullet board? In 1775 or 1810? We have no way of knowing. Same for the priming horn.
But I bet it was while he was young."
These quotes can be found in this thread: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=19243.15
I think Dr. Boone’s question is a reasonable question to ask to determine the validity of the pouch. Perhaps Dan would like to offer it here? I ask because it is the only case of a short starter I have ever heard of that could be from the 18th century, though that is not confirmed.
I would LOVE to get documentation of using short starters in the 18th century as common practice, because it makes shooting a flint rifle more accurate. However, there just doesn’t seem to be documentation to support it.
And Dan also asked:
“Here is a question for those versed in such things.
If a member of the "Continental line" (or Red Coats) and in a "shooting match" against the Red Coats (or Continental Line) and you suffer a flash in the pan how do you reprime? I have never studied 18th century military drill so I don't know.
Is it written down some where? If its not documented then they just waited for the inevitable bayonet charge or the "run away! run away!" command right?
Just curious.”
There is nothing in any 18th century drill manual I’ve ever seen telling one what to do when one had a flash in the pan. Matter of fact, through the Civil War drill manuals I’ve read, I don’t recall seeing anything telling one what to do when a percussion rifle did not go off.
Since 18th century drill manuals always began the loading process by biting the end off the cartridge paper and priming the pan, they most likely assumed when one had a misfire, that the next cartridge would be used to re-prime the pan and the rest of the cartridge not loaded into the musket. However, that was not written down in the manuals. Of course, it is entirely possible that in such a case during the heat of battle the soldier may not have realized his musket did not go off in a volley fire and when the next round was used to prime and load, it may have burst the barrel or fired both loads out the front. There were cases of burst barrels that were recorded and likely that is one reason why.
During the Civil War, they found a rifle musket that was dropped by a Confederate soldier in the sunken road right after the Battle of Fredericksburg, It had something like 22 cartridges and minie balls loaded in it. It was not written down whether the cone/nipple was open to the powder charge or not. If the cone/nipple was plugged up, the soldier might have put caps on it for each time he loaded it and tried to fire. It is also possible that he forgot to put a cap on the cone/nipple. As fast and furiously as Confederate soldiers were firing their rifled muskets that day, and they loaded and passed rifle muskets up to the soldiers in front, it is quite possible either thing happened.
I don’t believe military manuals addressed what to do about misfires until Field Manuals were written in the Post WWII era. Where most of us got our information about it was during the required safety briefs prior to firing on the annual requalification range. Further, the first FM I can recall that had such information in it was for the M16A1.
Gus
-
Here is an interesting read.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4786-the-american-rifleman-in-the-revolutionary-war
Couple things caught my eye while reading this. One remark about Riflemen being able to reload in 30 seconds. Actually I have no problem doing this, and that is with an extra step of using the short starter.
Also, I like that the author does use the word "pace" in his writings, though whether he drew this from research, I don't know?
The author lost me when I read this comment:
"the Kentucky could bring down a man or a deer at 100 or more yards and knock a squirrel out of a tree at 200 or more."
Gus
-
Thought that odd as well.
-
I might believe it could knock a squirrel out of a tree at 100 yards and of course it could bring down a deer or man at 200 or more. Maybe it was a typographical error where it got switched around. However, a 100 yard shot on a squirrel would be a difficult shot to make even from a rest.
Gus
-
I think the author was referring to the power of the rifle in that it could drop a man or deer at 100 yards and the accuracy that it could hit a squirrel at 200 yards. Two different descriptions in the same sentence.
-
I think the author was referring to the power of the rifle in that it could drop a man or deer at 100 yards and the accuracy that it could hit a squirrel at 200 yards. Two different descriptions in the same sentence.
That makes sense.
Not to open another can of worms (so to speak), but I've always found the following (requirement/ boast) to be questionable at best. I just have a hard time buying into this;
[To qualify for service with the company, [Captain John Lowdon’s Company of Northumberland County Riflemen], a rifleman had to fire at and repeatedly hit a seven-inch target at 250 yards, repeatedly]
I just find this hard to believe and wonder if it wasn't as much propaganda at the time then any thing else? I feel they were good shots, and yes it is possible to do, but with regularity - I doubt it, even if it was done from prone off a rest, especially when we're talking 250 yards. If the ball left the muzzle at 1750 fps, regardless if it was 200+ years ago or not, it would still have to pass through the "sub-sonic" field where we know today that modern .22lr hv bullets wobble. Now perhaps with the ball being round and heavier it wasn't effective to the same degree as our modern 40 grain .22lr rim fire bullet?
-
No bullet (elongated) shapes I am aware of, maintain stability through the transonic zone of speed. Boat-tailed bullets seem to be the less stable of all, but I'm sure Gus can fill us in on that. Not many ML shooters use boat-tailed bullets, however.
From my own and Taylor's shooting at longer ranges that involved transonic speeds, I assume round balls are very much less effected by the transition from super sonic to sub sonic speeds than are elongated bullets. This most likely would be due to the hemispherical shape of the ball- centre of the ball is the centre of balance and centre of the stability.
-
Thanks Daryl. I never thought to much about the possibility of a round ball perhaps transitioning until this thread. For near 40 years of shooting the patched round ball, I remember not only myself, but other fellow shooters as well saying to the new comers to the sport, "nothing flies more true then a round ball out to 100 yards." I never thought much about those words even when we shot out to 200 yards at gongs.
-
I might be able to help with the subject of period loading processes.
James Audubon, c1810, describing his host preparing to go raccoon hunting:
"… He blows through his rifle to ascertain that it is clear, examines his flint, and thrusts a feather into the touch-hole. To a leathern bag swung at his side is attached a powder-horn; his sheath-knife is there also; below hangs a narrow strip of homespun linen. He takes from his bag a bullet, pulls with his teeth the wooden stopper from his powder-horn, lays the ball in one hand, and with the other pours the powder upon it until it is just overtopped. Raising the horn to his mouth, he again closes it with the stopper, and restores it to its place. He introduces the powder into the tube; springs the box of his gun, greases the "patch" over with some melted tallow, or damps it; then places it on the honey-combed muzzle of his piece. The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded. The rifle leaps as it were into the hunters arms, the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed. “Now I’m ready,” cries the woodsman….
Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492.
Lots of interesting stuff, but particularly note the use of a knife to start (by pressing, not striking) the ball, and the fact that the touch-hole was large enough that the rifle would self-prime and required a feather to keep it from doing so prematurely. Our raccoon hunter doesn't seem to have been terribly concerned about measuring his powder accurately, but since there are period accounts of powder measures we can assume that his method was not universal in that regard.
In addition to the excellent distinction Artificer is making between modern and period loading techniques, it might also be helpful to make a distinction between potential accuracy (period and contemporary) and what was actually accomplished under field conditions, including the effects of fear and other stresses of combat. Perhaps this has already been brought up; if so, I apologize.
Edited to add: Meshach Browning also recounts bending his rifle barrel when it shot too high for his liking. As a matter of fact, Meshach seems like the archetypical example of someone who, despite making his living through hunting, doesn't seem to have been overly concerned with precision shooting. While I think he was a certifiable nut in all kinds of ways, I wonder how common that attitude was...
-
No bullet (elongated) shapes I am aware of, maintain stability through the transonic zone of speed. Boat-tailed bullets seem to be the less stable of all, but I'm sure Gus can fill us in on that. Not many ML shooters use boat-tailed bullets, however.
From my own and Taylor's shooting at longer ranges that involved transonic speeds, I assume round balls are very much less effected by the transition from super sonic to sub sonic speeds than are elongated bullets. This most likely would be due to the hemispherical shape of the ball- centre of the ball is the centre of balance and centre of the stability.
Daryl is right on the money about elongated bullets going unstable as they transition down in speed and not so much on round balls. Matter of fact, elongated bullets can be unstable just due to the rifling twist, unlike what we usually find in Muzzle Loading barrels that are far more forgiving of twist rate. The worst case I’ve ever seen with modern rifles was with some M1 carbines that were rebarreled with chrome lined barrels that had been rejected by the U.S. government for having tight and loose spots and some even had interrupted rifling twist as the rifling went down the bore. Even at the short range of 25 yards, they made elongated holes in the target and occasionally bullets went through the paper targets sideways.
I’m not a mechanical engineer, though over the years I’ve bedeviled real ones to get some explanations of things we found worked by trial and error. Explanations of changing pitch and yaw as the elongated bullets slow down and hit denser atmosphere or wind are difficult to grasp. The best way to visualize what happens is if you hold your hand straight with your forearm and begin making circles with it, then add circles in the area of your elbow that are not concentric with the circles made my your hand and maybe at a slower speed at the hand or elbow. Before long the difference in the circles made by the hand and elbow sort of demonstrate what happens to an elongated bullet when it slows down. If the bullet travels far enough that way, it will even begin to tumble once it is no longer stabilized by spinning around it’s axis like a football is thrown.
Gus
-
Elnathan’s period account is an excellent one as it really goes into detail about the loading process. The point he noted from the text about pressing the ball into the muzzle with the knife handle is important. This means one will get a tighter fitting patch/ball combination down the bore than what could be done by pressing the ball in place by the thumb or hand (neither of the last two ways to press the ball with a body part would have been safe to do anyway).
Something that is not mentioned in the account is the handle of the knife most likely was wood, as most trade knives were, so it would not have deformed a lead ball as much as a harder handle material might do. I remember one buckskinner on the Primitive Range in the mid 70’s at Friendship who started his balls this way, but he used a knobbly antler slab handled knife. I noticed the “knobblies” sometimes deformed the ball, but he said it didn’t matter at the ranges we shot. OK, I was a young newcomer then, so I didn’t argue, but refrained from doing it myself and stuck to a wood short starter.
I can’t remember when I first read this account years ago, but at the time I had thought pouring powder over the ball was just an old wives tale before I read it. However, some forum members mentioned in other threads that they tried it with different size balls and then measured the charges. Though the “poured over the ball” powder charges were not as accurate in volume/weight as poured into a measure and varied more, the charge actually was in a good range to propel the bullet fairly accurately and safely.
Now of course the range he was shooting raccoons was not that great and you don’t need a lot of bullet mass to kill them. In the years I hunted Raccoon before I joined the Corps, I took 47 raccoon with 49 shots from my Ruger Mark I .22 rimfire target pistol and I was not nearly as good a pistol shot then as in later years. Even shooting one handed with the other hand holding the old style large plastic lanterns behind my head to illuminate the sights and target, the range was just not that great even in some very large trees the raccoon occasionally treed in.
I have no original account to base this on, but I think the “pour the powder over the ball” method was a starting point and then they would try adding a little more powder at a time until the rifle shot it’s best. Now, here is one thing I won’t emulate historically. Grin. I’ll use an adjustable powder measure to find the right load and then cut a tinned or wood measure to that charge for historic interpretation.
Good point about the turkey feather being necessary to close off the touch hole. Such large “self priming” touch holes are not real popular with a person on the right side of a right handed shooter. However, this was a good period way to ensure the main powder charge stayed more consistent in the barrel and thus would have given slightly better accuracy than allowing varying amounts of the main powder charge to flow into the touch hole channel and pan.
We have written a little on “the fog of war” making accurate shooting more difficult in war than in hunting or on the target range, but it is a point well worth repeating. The psychological pressures lead to crazy, stupid, dangerous, and sometimes unbelievable things in war time. In high level NM shooting competition, it was a “given” that one usually would not shoot as well in matches as their average scores in practice until one had shot a lot of matches. That was just “match nerves” and no one was shooting at them!
Gus
-
First, I have no idea how tight a load was used in the 18th c by Tim Murphy or anyone else of the time. I don't think anyone else does either. I can load the load used at 285 yards with the ROD ONLY and in fact did since I did not even OWN a starter at the time.
There ARE targets fired in the 1920s using ORIGINAL RIFLES in Dillion's book, at least the first edition. A book everyone here should have read if they want to talk accuracy of original flintlock rifles.
I suggest that those interested look there. Especially the trials of "Old Killdeer" which they state has ORIGINAL RIFLING.
I have not re-read the text but a number of ORIGINAL FL rifles seem to have fired groups of 2-2 1/2" at 100 there is a three shot group by Old Killdeer that seems to be small enough to hit a NICKLE fired at 100 yards by Kaufman.
They have another target from 200 yards that is about 4" high and 7" wide if its full sized as it appears to be. I suspect this is accurate enough to hit a man at 300 in 3 shots or so...
The book also contains ORIGINAL TARGETS from the 1830s. Probably fired at 50-60 yards. 60 apparently was a common distance. But they could be 25 or 40 or 100.
So get a copy look at plates 63, 71 75, 76, 77 and 79 and probably others.
I am amazed that so many people here apparently did not know where to find the photos of Cooke's equipment and accounts of ORIGINAL rifles being fired in "modern times" (90 odd years ago) and the other information contained in various books which are either still in print or readily available. Remember in 1920s there there were people around who were alive before the advent of the self-contained cartridge. No doubt people like Dillon and Kaufman were interested in Kentucky rifled BEFORE the 1920s they could EASILY have talked to people who had USED them in the mid 19th c.
Yes there is "dated material" in Dillon and in Cline, but the targets, especially in Dillon are timeless.
Its past bedtime in Montana.
Dan
-
PS
I have pressed modern "tight" loads into the muzzle with a knife handle too.
So pressing a patched ball into the muzzle with a knife handle does not equate to "loose".
Dan
-
I've got a few more things to say and then I'm bowing out of this conversation. To suggest that all patching material that was available during this time period was inconsistent in thickness and tightness of weave shows a remarkable misunderstanding of the process of turning flax into linen. My sister is an established member of the crafts guild here in Mississippi and is a weaver. She makes fabric from the raw material, both flax and cotton, spinning into thread on a circa 1830 spinning wheel and weaving that thread into cloth on a handmade manual loom. She has made some linen that would make 300 count linen look like burlap. My point is this, these spinning and weaving skills predate the American Revolution by a significant margin and this kind of cottage industry was common in the colonies. Remember that not all the riflemen in the ARW were from the frontier, and even those who were had access to good patching material when they came to where the war was fought.
Since we can only speculate as to how they actually loaded their rifles, we would be wise to not pooh-pooh the stories and legends of the long range shots.
Be Well,
Bill
-
Homespun linen, linsey Woolsey, and other cloth production was often limited in the lower classes to just what they needed to clothe family members. It was not uncommon that boys got one long linen shirt per year and it was often recorded that the shirts were pretty thread bare and ragged as it drew close to the time to make the “new annual shirt.” Though such cloth was made in different thicknesses for hot and cold times of the year, it did not come in a wide variety of thicknesses or thread count - as it was home production.
I’m not disputing that linen cloth could not be made in a variety of thread count and thicknesses from 1725 to 1775, but it normally required a weaver to make the widest various ranges of sizes of cloth to choose from to find what might be best to patch rifle balls with for the individual rifle. The availability of looms and especially weavers was different in different times and areas of the frontier during this half century.
A good reference on cloth and clothing during our time period can be found here: http://people.virginia.edu/~mgf2j/clothes.html
Now, IF a weaver was available to the rifle owner and IF he could afford to pay or trade for the weaver’s cloth, then he would try to find the size cloth that best suited for his rifle and balls. There were no precision calipers or micrometers then, so it was trial and error. Too tight of cloth would not be used, so his choices were narrowed down to the thicknesses of cloth made and best fit his rifle. That’s a huge difference from today when we can walk into a fabric store with precision calipers or better still micrometers and choose a suitable cloth with texture, thread count, and most importantly the uniform thickness that best fits our the balls we use in our rifles for the best accuracy.
I am not sure what to make about the significance of cloth being more available during the Revolutionary War to American Riflemen as they got closer to the areas major battles were fought. Perhaps you mean closer to where weavers were set up or what was left of imported fabrics? If so, then it still remained trying to choose from what size of suitable cloth that was made with enough threads per inch and was available or was normally made by a weaver as mentioned above.
As to the wisdom of “pooh-poohing” the stories and legends of long range accuracy, anyone may certainly believe anything they choose, but some of the myths and legends are just that and can not be fact. I suggest that real wisdom comes from separating myths and legends from facts.
One of the most telling facts is that American Riflemen were ordered not to shoot past 150 yards because they missed too much from further ranges. This order no doubt came about from the general rule of thumb that most American Riflemen missed during war time beyond that range. That is not to say that a very small percentage of truly exceptional Riflemen could not have shot from longer ranges and hit their targets. This is separating myth/legend from fact.
There is no doubt in my mind that the most credible accounts of the accuracy of the Longrifle IN COMBAT came from British Major (later Colonel) George Hanger. He was known at the time as having been perhaps THE finest rifle shot in England. It was also known he interviewed many American Riflemen on the American Longrifle. After the war, he wrote a book strongly recommending Rifle Regiments be adopted into the British Army. Here is one comment he made during the war and I capitalized some parts to emphasize them, as I’m having a hard time emboldening or underlining in this thread:
“I have many times asked the American backwoodsmen WHAT WAS THE MOST THEIR BEST MARKSMEN could do; and they have constantly told me that an expert rifleman, provided he can draw good and true sight (they mean by this expression, when they can distinctly see the object aimed at in a direct line with the two sights on the rifle), can hit the head of a man at 200 yards. I am certain provided an American rifleman was to get a perfect aim at 300 yards at me, he would most undoubtedly would hit me, unless if was a very windy day, so much so as to occasion the ball considerably to deflect”
Now, this is what the BEST MARKSMEN of the American Riflemen or “expert riflemen” could do and not what the AVERAGE Rifleman could do at 200 yards. Since virtually ALL the American Riflemen were backwoodsmen, this distinction is critical when we talk about the accuracy of the Long Rifle. Is he still talking about what the BEST marksmen can do when describing hitting someone at 300 yards if their aim was (1) perfect and IF it was (2) not too windy? It would certainly seem so as he was talking about what “the best” or “expert riflemen” could do in the sentence immediately before it. Even if one suggests Colonel Hanger was now making a different and more generalized statement, in the very next sentence which is not likely, he still put two extremely important qualifiers [(1) and (2) above] in his assessment that can not be overlooked. If the rifleman’s aim was not perfect or if the wind was too much, then it was no longer a sure bet he would be hit at 300 yards. Further, we can not forget that American Riflemen were ordered NOT to fire beyond 150 yards as they missed to much at that distance as a rule of thumb.
Major now Colonel Hanger’s quote that was written down after the war:
“Colonel, now General Tarleton, and myself were standing a few yards out of a wood, observing the situation of a part of the enemy which we intended to attack. There was a rivulet in the enemy's front, and a mill on it, to which we stood directly with our horses fronting, observing their motions. IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PLAIN FIELD BETWEEN US AND THE MILL, NOT SO MUCH AS A SINGLE BUSH ON IT.. Our orderly-bugle man stood behind us, about three yards, but with his horse's side to our horses' tails.
A rifleman passed over the mill-dam, evidently observing two officers, and laid himself down on his belly, for, in such positions they always lie, to take a good shot at a long distance. He took a deliberate and cool shot at my friend, at me, and the bugle-horn man.*
Now observe how well this fellow shot. It was in the month of August, and NOT A BREATH OF WIND WAS STIRRING. Colonel Tarleton's horse and mine, I am certain, were not anything like two feet apart, for we were in close consultation, how we should attack with our troops, which laid 300 yards in the wood, and could not be perceived by the enemy. A rifle-ball passed between him and me looking directly to the mill: I evidently observed the flash of the powder. I directly said to my friend, “I think we had better move or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, amusing themselves at our expence.” The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle-horn man said, “Sir, my horse is shot.” The horse staggered, fell down and died. He was shot directly behind the fore-leg, near to the heart, at least where the great blood-vessels lie, which lead to the heart. He took the saddle and bridle off, went into the wood, and got another horse. We had a number of spare horses led by negro lads.
Now, speaking of this rifleman's shooting, nothing could be better, BUT, FROM THE CLIMATE, HE HAD MUCH IN HIS FAVOUR. FIRST AT THAT TIME OF THE YEAR, THERE WAS NOT ONE BREATH OF A WIND, SECONDLY, THE ATMOSPHERE IS SO MUCH CLEARER THAN OURS, THAT HE CAN TAKE A MORE PERFECT AIM.
*I have passed several times over this ground, and ever observed it with the greatest attention, and I can positively assert that the distance he fired from, at us, was full four hundred yards.”
OK, let’s analyze the shooting conditions in this case “by the numbers.” Grin..
1. It was a very clear day for shooting with not a breath of wind. That’s the equivalent of virtually perfect environmental conditions for shooting that are not common. Modern military rifle ranges with high berms on each side of the range almost never offer that kind of “no wind” conditions at 400 yards.
2. There was nothing between the American Rifleman and the British, as the ground between them was an absolutely plain field with not a bush on it. Here it is very similar to a modern military rifle range.
3. The American rifleman took the time to lay down and take up the best shooting position possible to make a long distant shot AND he was not disturbed while doing so. Wow, what an advantage!
4. The uniforms the two British Officers wore were plenty distinctive, even at that distance, to mark them as Officers because they were trimmed in SILVER. There can be no doubt the American Rifleman knew he was shooting at Officers in such perfect environmental conditions. Here is a portrait of Major/Colonel John Hanger himself in his Legion uniform that was painted only one to two years after his return to England after the war and it is easy to see the silver braid that trimmed his and Tarleton’s uniforms to denote them as Officers.
http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/friends/gh_beach.html
5. To me, this one is the most telling. The American rifleman ONLY saw THREE British Soldiers on horseback standing still and not moving, as Colonel Hanger states the rest of the British Troops were concealed in the woods 300 yards behind them. Though the American Rifleman probably assumed more British Troops were in the area, there were no other direct threats to the American Rifleman than those three British soldiers. That made shooting at them as “low stress” as one gets in a combat situation and helps the shooter deliver the best shot possible. More stress than shooting on a rifle range for practice to be sure, but no where near the stress of trying to shoot when facing opposing light infantry, cavalry and artillery.
OK, what was the result of the American Rifleman’s shot when EVERTHING was as perfect as possible for such a cool and calculated shot in war time?
A. The American Rifleman MISSED either Officer he was aiming at!!!!
B. The American Rifleman even MISSED the horse/s the Officers were mounted on!!!!!
C. The fact the “Bugle Horn Man’s” horse was broadside to the American Rifleman (behind the two Officers) and considering where the horse was hit, demonstrates the American Rifleman not only misjudged windage, but also misjudged elevation as well.
Now I realize this assessment can be seen as brutally factual. I spent many years building and repairing very accurate rifles for both NM shooters and Snipers and was often in their company. I’m judging this as a Sniper would judge the shot. HOWEVER, even though the American Rifleman MISSED, he still made quite a shot! Had the British Officers NOT moved after the shot and still were mounted on horseback and standing still, the American Rifleman may and even probably would have hit at least one of the horses under one of the British Officers on a second shot. Still, that does not change the fact the American Rifleman MISSED his target when he had the most perfect conditions one could expect in war time.
So what have we learned from these two accounts?
1. The BEST or most Expert American Riflemen could reliably hit at man’s head at 200 yards. Not ALL American Riflemen, mind you, only the BEST of them. Further, Major Hanger never witnessed such expert shooting and was going off what others told him. However, due to Major Hanger’s background, I am pretty certain we can take this as fact for the BEST or most expert American Riflemen.
2. I have no doubt Major Hanger BELIEVED that if such an expert rifleman took perfect aim at him at 300 yards (and though he didn’t say it, I’m sure he meant standing still) and wind conditions were almost ideal, the American Rifleman would hit him at that distance. Belief and reality are often not the same thing, though. Hmmmm…..OK, IF that was true in reality, then that begs the question how did he and Banastre Tarleton SURVIVE the war and returned home to England?
Bannastre Tarleton, especially, was probably THE most hated British Officer of the Revolution and one of the most recognized British Officers during the Revolution. LOADS of Americans wanted to see Banastre Tarleton DEAD during the war for the slaughter Tarleton committed against surrendering American Troops in 1780 at the “Waxhaws Massacre.” Tarleton was VERY active right up until his surrender after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. Yet, American Riflemen did not get him at Camden or Fishing Creek or Blackstock Hill or Cowpens or Guilford Court House or even when he was bottled up at Gloucester Point, across the York River from the British position at Yorktown. There is little doubt Tarleton was sitting still on his horse within 300 yards of American Riflemen during that period.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/army/p/tarleton.htm
3. Even under THE most ideal conditions in war time, an American Rifleman MISSED at 400 yards when he shot at Colonel Tarleton and Major Hanger. Sure, it was a close miss, but a miss nonetheless under IDEAL conditions. That means 400 yards was outside the effective range of the American Rifle and a hit at that distance would have been sheer chance or luck.
But, all in all, we still have to come back to the fact that American Riflemen were ORDERED not so shoot beyond 150 yards, because they generally missed too much beyond that range.
Gus
-
Oh, Dag Blast it!! GRIN.
I forget to mention ANOTHER thing about the 400 yard shot Major/Colonel Hanger wrote, that is very important.
“Colonel, now General Tarleton, and myself were standing a few yards out of a wood…..”
Since they were a few yards in front of the wood, this MAY have offered the American Rifleman an aiming point to shoot at and not just “hold over and guess” at elevation. IOW, there may have been a tree or trees that were tall enough just behind them for the American rifleman to have a SOLID aiming point. Of course we can’t know for certain that a tree would have been in the right spot to aim at, but if there was such a tree, that would have made even a MORE ideal condition for that shot.
Gus
-
i guess it all depends on interpretation. the way i see it, the hit was almost center of mass and i would imagine that may be where the american intended. is it unreasonable to believe that knowing it was an extreme range that he might shoot at the center of mass instead of picking out one officer or the other? either way though, the original question was what is the rifle capable of. the fog of war, wind etc is irrelevant. we are trying to find out what the rifle is capable of under ideal conditions. if the wind is blowing, or the shooters eyes are like mine, has nothing to do with what the rifle can do. of course the most accurate rifle in the world wont perform up to its capabilities under hurricane winds or if the shooter doesnt/cant do his part. mark
-
The discussion in this thread is all about accuracy of the Longrifle in war and that includes everything that will cause problems with accuracy. It is not about what the period Longrifle may have been able to attain in peace time on a target range. So it is a particular type of accuracy we are discussing..
Well, I don’t think the American Rifleman was aiming centre of mass between the two targets because IF he got lucky and his ball flew true to that point, it would have automatically meant he would have missed both Officers.
We will never know which Officer the American had targeted, but if we want to use the centre of mass theory, then he would most likely have aimed for the centre of mass on one Officer only.
Gus
-
What I was referring to about when the riflemen got closer to "where the war was fought" is that they were in more populated areas where dry goods were more readily available. I would speculate that a serious rifleman would be extremely fussy about his patching material. My reference to my sister's weaving skills was merely to point out that really good cloth could be manufactured at home with a spinning wheel and loom.
I have been shooting these muzzleloaders exclusively for 41 years and have never carried any kind of measuring instrument into a fabric store. I have always picked out what I needed by feel with the thumb and forefinger-only been fooled once.
When I finished my .54 caliber rifle thirty years ago, I did some shooting at 300 meters with it just to see what it would do. After two shots to "get the range" I and a friend put 13 of 17 shots into a piece of cardboard that measured 24" X 24". Couldn't do it now- I can't even see 300 meters.
My overall point is this- The American riflemen of the revolutionary period were most likely pretty fussy about what went down the barrel of their rifle, after all, that rifle was a sizable investment.
Could every rifleman make 300 yard shots? Probably not. But, I feel reasonably certain that there were some who could.
Be Well,
Bill
-
Good morning Gus,
[Bannastre Tarleton, especially, was probably THE most hated British Officer of the Revolution and one of the most recognized British Officers during the Revolution.]
Personally, I feel Tarleton was the target of that lone rifleman on that day. However, if he was, I don't know why several riflemen weren't assigned the task?
I believe Hanger's account on distance, because of his background, and he did do a hands on review of where this account took place.
I'm still skeptical of the following, until I can run some test, and won't draw a conclusion one way or the other until I do. As I said before, I have hit gongs (17" round) at 200 yards offhand, and made consistent hits on that, but a 7" target at an additional 50 yards? Perhaps from a prone rest position?
[To qualify for service with the company, [Captain John Lowdon’s Company of Northumberland County Riflemen], a rifleman had to fire at and repeatedly hit a seven-inch target at 250 yards, repeatedly]
Always a pleasure to read your posts Gus. :)
-
Could every rifleman make 300 yard shots? Probably not. But, I feel reasonably certain that there were some who could.
Be Well,
Bill
Bill,
I can certainly agree with this. Thanks for the further clarification.
Gus
-
Gus- I didn't intend to be contrary. It is always a pleasure to read your posts on this board because your posts are always backed up by good research.
Be Well,
Bill
-
Gus- I didn't intend to be contrary. It is always a pleasure to read your posts on this board because your posts are always backed up by good research.
Be Well,
Bill
Bill,
I know we can’t get the feel of what others mean when we read what they write, as opposed to speaking to them. Please understand I never took your posts as “contrary.”
Also, I look forward to others bringing new or different information/opinions/experience to a discussion. If our information is never challenged, or worse we don’t have as much information as possible, we can’t learn.
Thanks for posting in this section and thanks for the kind words.
Gus
-
Hi CS,
Thanks for the kind words on my posts.
I’m not sure even in such ideal conditions, if the lone rifleman mentioned by Major Hanger could identify which of the two British Officers was Tarleton. 400 yards is a long way to make a personal identification when both Officers’ uniforms matched so closely. MAYBE if Tarleton was known to ride a certain color horse, he might have been identified at that distance? There are a lot of things we don’t know about this incident, though.
1. We don’t know how long the two British Officers and “Bugle Horn Man” were reconnoitering the ground ahead of them. I have nothing to document this on, but I get the impression it wasn’t long and perhaps only a few minutes. (Every time I read this account, I get a kick out of Major Hanger using the term “Bugle Horn Man” instead of “Bugler.” Maybe Bugler is a later period term? )
2. I think Major Hanger would have remarked if there were other American troops nearby or at least any he or Tarleton saw. Since no other Americans were mentioned, it sounds like the American Rifleman was perhaps in a small scouting party and the others did not show themselves? Maybe the American Rifleman was a lone sentry or scout that was at the furthest edge of where other Americans were or were moving into that area?
3. I also get a kick out of the fact both Officers probably watched the American move into and take up a good firing position with what seems like little regard. I get the impression they were not concerned so much as curious. They probably figured the American being alone and so far away, was no threat and stayed to see if other Americans showed themselves? I can visualize them thinking, “Now what is THIS impetuous ruffian think he is doing?” or something to that effect. GRIN.
4. I’m SURE their attitudes changed when the Rifleman’s ball passed between them and the Bugle Horn Man cried out his horse was shot. Grin. Of course they knew that in the time it would take to load a rifle or musket, they could easily move so as to no longer provide the Rifleman with targets.
As to Captain Lowdon’s company all being able to consistently place a ball in a 7” target at 250 yards, yes, I have a hard time believing that as well. I looked it up and in the following link, I lost count, but it looks like there were around 80 men in that company. That is a LOT of men to ALL be able to shoot that well and do it consistently.
http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/northumberland/areahistory/bell0005.txt
I’ve spent so many years using Minute of Angle to define accuracy, that I have to convert that level of shooting to just under 3 MOA. Now to shoot like that, you have to be able to put a ball consistently in about a One to Two inch circle at 100 yards because group size will open up the further the range is. I think that is “doable” at 100 yards from a prone rest with a really accurate period rifle, but 80 men all from one county and ALL being able to do it consistently on the first shot? That significantly strains credulity.
OK, so MOA may not mean much to many of us, so I looked up the average size of the modern male human head and it is 9 inches long by 6 inches wide. The average British soldier was about two to three inches shorter than we are today, so their average head size would have been slightly smaller. So this level of accuracy for Captain Lowdon’s men is CLOSE to them all being able to consistently make a head shot at 250 yards.
Major George Hanger related that ONLY the BEST and/or Most Expert American Riflemen could make a head shot at 200 yards, or 50 yards closer. Using that as a guide, it sounds like the claim for Captain Lowdon’s Company is, shall we say, a GOOD bit exaggerated? Grin.
Now, I’m sure someone will write or be thinking that these men all grew up with rifles, knew where they hit a different ranges, etc., etc. Well, that only goes so far and while I’m sure most of them were fine shots within the 110 to 120 yard maximum point blank range of the rifle, I still don’t believe all 80 men in the company could have done that. Here’s why:
In 1975, I was the Junior Armorer to THE Marine Corps Rifle Summer Team. ALL our NM M14’s then were capable of under or slightly over 2 MOA because we tested them on our super expensive bench rest machines, so that means that the rifles held between 6 to 7 inches at 300 yards for a TEN shot group. This equals or betters what ALL the period Longrifles in Captain Lowdon’s would have HAD to been able to shoot to get the kind of accuracy attributed to them.
We had about 65 shooters on the Team that came from all over the Marine Corps strength of about 200,000 in those days. Every shooter had to have “medaled” or shot well enough in a Division Match and The Marine Corps Match to qualify to get on the Summer Team. Maybe as many as 15 of them were “first year NM shooters,” so I throw them out and that leaves 50 shooters. Throw another 10 of the less accurate shooters out to get down to the 40 BEST shooters and that is only half the strength of Captain Lowden’s company. These shooters probably averaged about 30 years in age, so they had a LOT of experience firing from 200 to 1,000 yards.
Further, these shooters were outfitted with heavy leather shooting coats, shooting glasses, leather slings to steady their aim, shooting gloves and mats, scopes and all kinds of gear including a number of range flags to read the wind that an 18th century Rifleman could only have DREAMED of using. They practiced EVERY day on our 1,000 yard range for about 3 months with only the 4th of July off or when we traveled to different ranges. They fired 120 to 200 rounds a day every day they were not at matches or the single day off, though that was at different ranges. They also dry fired those nights they practiced for about an hour most of the time. Still, they had PLENTY of practice shooting prone at 300 yards AND had written down exact sight settings for many different wind/light/other range conditions. The value of that was they would look at the range flags, check temperature and humidity, etc., etc. and then go to their data book to see EXACTLY what sight setting would center their first round on target.
The 300 yard target then was still the old “V” ring target where the bullseye was 12 inches and the “tie breaking V ring” inside that was 6 “. (The modern tie breaking “X” ring is only THREE inches at 300 yards.) Compare this 12” black bullseye at 300 yards with the 7” target at 250 yards that Captain Lowdon’s troops shot at.
Let’s say I had gone up to those 40 of our BEST shooters in August after they had LOADS of practice firing 300 yard prone with their rifles and had the recorded data for that range down pat. How many of them could with certainty put a FIRST round into a 12” black bullseye at 300 yards? All of them? No, probably as many as 30 of them, though. Now let’s go to the V ring that was 6 inches at 300 compared to the 7 inches at 250 for Captain Lowdon’s men. Remember, MOST of our rifles held a group size that would have fit inside the V ring IF the shooter did his part. How many of them could have made that V ring on their first round with certainty? MAYBE 15 to 20 of them and that included those who had already won different NM trophies and matches and were already Distinguished Riflemen.
Now Marines on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team were some of the BEST shots in the country, let alone one county in Pennsylvania. If only 20 to 30 of them could match the supposed accuracy of Captain Lowdon’s 80 man Rifle Company, then Captain Lowdon’s Company were some kind of Super Men or Demi Gods.
So, no, I can not possibly believe that all 80 of Captain Lowdon’s company could have shot in a 7” circle at 250 yards with certainty. Just NOT possible, in my opinion and experience.
Gus
-
CS,
I just went back and re-read the quote from Major/Colonel Hanger on the 400 yard shot. I realized I missed something that pertains to a question you asked about why the American did not send more than one Rifleman to shoot at Tarleton.
It’s remarkable to me, but for so short a quote, I keep finding things I missed before or realize things later on. Here’s the part of the quote that pertains to your earlier question:
“Colonel, now General Tarleton, and myself were standing a few yards out of a wood, observing the situation of a part of the enemy which we intended to attack.”
I’m sorry, but it just dawned on me that “part of the enemy” could/would mean the British Officers did indeed see more than just one Rifleman. It sounds like they saw at least the disposition of some of the American forces and were probably sizing up the situation on how best to attack.
I just can’t find anything in the quote that may tell us the Rifleman was sent from a group or not. Original accounts tell us that American Rifleman were often in groups of about 12, as in the Tim Murphy shot account. Today such a group would be a squad, but having studied 18th century Drill Manuals (that we Americans also used), the smallest break down of a Company mentioned was Platoon size and more men than that. Now a “Mess” was 5-6 men with a Corporal in charge when the units were at full strength and this number was due to men assigned with each other for receiving issued rations (food) and cooking them, hence the term “Mess.”
I have never been able to document it, but I have always suspected that “details” for chores or working parties were assigned by Messes, because it is easier to split up and assign the men of a Platoon that way. Scouting parties may have been made up of one or two “Messes” (or more as the Officers saw fit) so MAYBE the American Rifleman was out there from a group of 5 to 12 other Riflemen and maybe only 5? (Gosh this seems a convoluted way to try to come up with how many men may have been with him, but this is how I come up with my best guess from the way period soldiers were assigned. Grin.)
If the American Rifleman was indeed there with the other men in his mess, they could have had everyone in the mess shoot at the British Officers and you are right they probably would have done so. Of course, if there were other riflemen there, MAYBE they thought this Rifleman was the only one good enough shot to hit at 400 yards? OR it could be we are back to the theory that the lone Rifleman was on Sentry Duty or forward scout and thus there all by himself. We will most likely never know for sure.
Gus
-
Hi Gus,
That was the way I read it, so it puzzled me why only one Rifleman attempted the shot? It very well could have been as you suggested, perhaps he was the best shot? When putting this into prospective, the Rifleman did send a message to those British Officer's, and obviously the Officer's did have to cut their observations short as one round ball from four football field lengths away sent them, back into the woods.
I look at that particular shot as a high risk shot, but thinking about it (though I'm confident it was one of the men he was going after), the American Rifleman did deprive the British Army of one horse, and no doubt made the "Bugle Horn Man" a bit anxious. :)
-
I have a very interesting documented account from my grandfathers best friend Henry Jolly who I believe was in his mess. Maybe someone can google his story and get it posted.
He was very nearby when Arnold was shot in the leg.
They were in the 8th. Pa. regiment. Morgan /Swearingen
I just need to learn how to post it here , Ill work on it. D
-
Lets see if this works....??? Anyone?
http://www.mydunrovin.net/jollyfamily.htm
-
I have more but am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post
this personal history of Henry Jolly and the movements of these riflemen. D
-
I have been doing a little research, and it seems pretty likely that the incident under discussion took place in 1780 in South Carolina. Hanger was Tarleton's second in command during the Southern Campaign, and only was transferred to the British Legion after the fall of Charlestown . He was wounded in September 1780 while skirmishing with Davies' militia in Charlotte, NC (Tarleton being sick at the time, Hanger was in command and decided that a headlong cavalry charge was the best way to deal with men behind a stone wall. Not the best idea.) He fell ill shortly afterwards with yellow fever, and seems to have not rejoined the Legion before it was captured at Yorktown, according to his autobiography. Ergo, the only August that he and Tarleton served together was that of 1780.
During the first half of August 1780, the British Legion was scouting for Cornwallis’s main army, I think - they were with Cornwallis until after the battle of Camden on August 15. I doubt that the incident took place then, as the two armies seem to have pretty much walked right up to each other without much preliminary skirmishing. The day after, however, Tarleton was sent after Thomas Sumpter and caught up with him on at Fishing Creek on the 18th, destroying his army in a surprise attack. I don’t think the situation Hanger describes could have taken place prior to Fishing Creek, so it probably took place during last part of August after Fishing Creek and before Tarleton’s illness in early September.
The most likely candidate for the rifleman, therefore, is a South Carolina militiaman, possibly one of Sumpter’s men that survived Fishing Creek or perhaps one of Davies’ men. He would not have been one of the groups involved at Musgrove Mills or at King’s Mountain, I think - those were busy with Ferguson‘s force to the west during this time. I also think it likely that the British Legion had rejoined Cornwallis and were scouting/skirmish ahead of the main army when the shot was taken, but that is just a guess on my part.
Someone with access to a good unit history of the British Legion might be able to pin it down further - I am relying on Buchanan’s Road to Guildford Courthouse to the movements of British Legion, and he doesn’t give a comprehensive account of what they were doing during this period.
Hanger’s autobiography is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=plUDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=general+george+hanger&source=bl&ots=E3ZJzh7FBh&sig=RmnTFZZyZs_VAMX36RjULKSmS9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PFyNUsWWMrb-4AO2rYG4Bg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&q=general%20george%20hanger&f=false
Pages 401-10 contain the relevant portions of his life, as well as some imaginatively nasty commentary on the habits and character of the backwoods settlers.
All this assumes that Hanger got the month correct! I think he did, though.
-
I have more but am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post
this personal history of Henry Jolly and the movements of these riflemen. D
I think folks would be interested indeed, but you might want to start a new thread for it since it doesn't directly bear on the subject of this thread.
-
Elnathan,
Very interesting research on the place the incident Major Hanger described the 400 yard shot. Thank you. The information you provided about Tarleton being sick in September explains some of the gap in his actions between Fishing Creek and Blackstock’s Farm/Hill.
For those interested and who like myself sometimes need a chronology to better understand events and when they took place, I decided to do the following list and hope it may be found useful by others.
Some of Banastre Tarleton’s movements in the Southern Campaign
1780
Waxhaw Massacre, May 29
Camden, August 15
Fishing Creek, August 18
MODIFIED TO ADD: Late August 400 YARD shot described by Major Hanger, as Elnathan suggests.
Blackstock’s Farm/Hill, Nov 20
1781
Cowpens, January 17 (Most of Tarleton’s force captured or killed except for about 250 men)
Cowan's Ford Skirmish, February 1
Guilford Courthouse, March 15
Attempt to capture Thomas Jefferson, May ?
Surrendered Yorktown/ Gloucester Point October
Gus
-
PS
I have pressed modern "tight" loads into the muzzle with a knife handle too.
So pressing a patched ball into the muzzle with a knife handle does not equate to "loose".
Dan
Sure, there is plenty of mechanical advantage in using a knife handle to start a very tight fitting ball/patch combination into a rifle bore. HOWEVER, it does not seat the ball very deep in the bore and not nearly as deep as with a short starter at three to four (or more) inches. It also makes getting the ball to begin down the barrel tougher if the patch/ball combination is tight, because of the tendency for the ramrod end to slip off the ball when it is that close to the muzzle.
I don’t doubt that some FEW rifles will shoot with a patched/ball combination that can be easily loaded with just a ramrod and no short starter, BUT that’s not the general consensus on MOST rifles here or in other threads on accurate shooting.
The short starter pushing the ball down three to four inches compresses the patch material more to fit the lands and especially the grooves, compared to just pushing the patched ball below the surface of the muzzle. That is the really important aspect of using the short starter. Of secondary importance using the short starter is getting the ball down far enough that one is less likely to snap/crack the ramrod because the ball/patch is thus compressed and further down the bore where it is easier to align and push the ramrod down the bore without bending the ramrod too much or slipping and really bending it too much that will cause a cracked or broken ramrod.
Our tight patch/ball combinations today can compel us to wipe the bore between shots on the tightest patch/ball combinations to maybe every three shots or at most five shots – to be able to ram down these tight fitting combinations. That is NOT how tight one would want any more than the FIRST patch/ball loaded in war time, because it would be so difficult to reload quickly. It also doesn’t seem likely they had patching material or pre cut patches in one’s pouch of two different thicknesses where one thickness was very tight for the first round and looser patches for the follow up rounds (especially considering they didn’t have a wide variety of thickness of patch material/cloth), unless they had a divided pouch to separate the two sizes of patches. Even so in the fog of war, one could easily grab the WRONG patch size and thus not get reloaded in time to be effective or save one’s skin with an advancing enemy.
Gus
-
As a non hunter, ignorance results in my being very impressed by the result of this shot. I understand that a round ball loses energy rapidly in flight although this can be offset by its very good terminal ballistic properties
All the same, the near instant death of an animal the size of a horse at the sort of range we are talking about does seem, well, surprising.
As I said, I don't know any better - but I started wondering if this might shed any light on the actual range...
-
“I think we had better move or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, amusing themselves at our ex pence.” The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle-horn man said, “Sir, my horse is shot.” The horse staggered, fell down and died. He was shot directly behind the fore-leg, near to the heart, at least where the great blood-vessels lie, which lead to the heart. He took the saddle and bridle off, went into the wood, and got another horse.
This would explain bringing down the horse, Dave. I can almost visualize the "Bugle Horn Man" reining in his horse as it staggers under him - all the while with the blood pumping out of the animal as it was bleeding out through that artery. I can see him stepping off the horse as it is going down - then him recovering his saddle.
I've never shot a deer beyond 80-90 yards, and with my 80 grain load of 2fg while using a .535 patched round ball has always blew right through the deer's lungs. Not a good comparison compared to horse hide and the distance at which the "Bugle Horn Man's" horse was hit and went down - eventually.
-
Something else that “suggests” most American Riflemen could not reliably hit a man at 300 yards, and perhaps 200 yards as the maximum “reliable” range to do it, is how the Riflemen were tactically deployed.
Before I go further, I have to note that we don’t have an extremely good idea of how Riflemen were deployed in many battles. It is often recorded they were supported by Light Infantry and that makes good sense to protect them from bayonet wielding British. Also because light infantry and their tactics, though still being “hashed out” at the time, was perhaps the closest thing Senior Officers trained in Continental Style Linear Tactic Battles, could come up with at the time? I’ve often wondered if those older/senior Officers thought, “OK, I’ve got Riflemen, now how the HECK do I deploy (use) them on the battlefield?”
I’m going to suggest Saratoga was the most important “Learning Battle” on how to use Riflemen, early in the War. The American Commanding General Gates buggered about and waited three hours till almost noon before doing anything and finally sent the Riflemen out ahead in what we might call a “Reconnaissance in Force” today. This demonstrates he was using them as Light Infantry. I could be wrong, but I take it they were then used on one or both flanks, where they could “melt into” the forest when pressed hard by bayonet wielding British. However, with the way Gates covered up how important Arnold was to the battle and Gates general incompetence shown there, maybe Gates learned little of how to best deploy Riflemen?
IF American Riflemen WERE able to reliably hit British Soldiers at 300 yards and I was the commander, I would have them in the FRONT lines and laying down in good shooting positions, at the start of every battle. I would have them spread out in one long line so as not to allow them to be butchered by British Artillery and so they could reload and fire as quickly and accurately as possible. I would form at least one line of Infantry not far behind them, so they could fall back/retreat in good order beside/behind the Infantry to support them and they could reform and continue shooting, when the British advanced and got too close. Used this way, Riflemen could take out two or three opposing Infantry each, BEFORE they got close enough to hurt the Riflemen. However, there are two big problems with that one has to prepare for, or it could mean disaster.
The first problem is the Riflemen and their Officers HAVE to have some discipline and the Riflemen must be confident their Officers will move them back when required. American Riflemen showed very poor or no discipline in the earlier battles in New York and were actually shamed there, before Saratoga. The second problem is you have to have disciplined Infantry behind the Riflemen and that was not something the Americans had until after Von Steuben trained them.
It seems it took an experienced Rifleman, as the Commanding General of American forces at a battle, to not only best deploy American Rifleman, but ALSO come up with tactics that would beat disciplined British forces “at their own game.” I’m referring to Dan Morgan at Cowpens. He DID place riflemen in the front rank, the Militia in the second rank and his seasoned veterans in the third rank. When the British attacked they were already fatigued from a lot of rapid marching prior to the battle and malnourished. The Riflemen did them damage, and the British advanced through them and thought they had driven away the Riflemen as normal. This tired the British more. Then the Brits received a few volleys from the Militia that hurt them and then it seemed the American Militia ran away as normal. Still that tired the Brits even more, though they THOUGHT they were winning the battle and continued their advance. THAT’S when they came upon the THIRD line of Americans and THIS time it was seasoned American Infantry, who were not afraid to stand and fight and who were NOT tired and hungry. Though the British tried a flanking movement, it was repulsed though in a somewhat confused fashion. The Brits must have been really exhausted at this point and the volley/s and charge of American Regulars with bayonets did them in. Tarleton then ordered his Cavalry Legion to attack, but they ‘RAN AWAY.” The result was the destruction and capture of most of the British force. An American RIFLEMAN who commanded all the Americans that day, taught the American Army how to beat the British at their own game.
Now it was amazing that Dan Morgan could even come to that battle, as he was suffering so much from sciata or back problems even before the battle. He must have been in great pain during the battle, as he had to finally retire from the war immediately after the battle. It was a Godsend that General Nathaniel Greene used Morgan’s basic tactics at Guilford Courthouse against Lord Cornwallis. Lord Cornwallis was one of , if not the best British Field Commander in the War. Cornwallis was only able to “win” the battle by having his much superior artillery forces fire over and into his own troops to save the British that day. Though Cornwallis won, it was such a pyrrhic victory with such losses in men and supplies, it set up his march to Yorktown and defeat there.
And all this begun by an experienced American RIFLEMAN who taught the American Army how to beat the British at their own game.
Gus
-
As a non hunter, ignorance results in my being very impressed by the result of this shot. I understand that a round ball loses energy rapidly in flight although this can be offset by its very good terminal ballistic properties
All the same, the near instant death of an animal the size of a horse at the sort of range we are talking about does seem, well, surprising.
As I said, I don't know any better - but I started wondering if this might shed any light on the actual range...
DaveP, I was talking with a rancher today and I asked him how thick skinned a horse's hide is? He told me it's not as tuff as a cow hide. Even barbed wire can tear a horse up pretty bad... So bullet / ball penetration most likely would not have been a problem when it struck this horse, and it would seem no bone was hit when this happened.
Gus, I think I could read your post every day. Quite interesting! :)
-
Was that bugle boys horse killed instantly or did it take some time to expire?
-
Was that bugle boys horse killed instantly or did it take some time to expire?
Sounds to me like it died fairly quickly, but not instantly - the bugler had time to realize his horse was hit, inform his superiors, and disentangle himself enough that he wasn't caught beneath the horse as it fell. It could have been longer, though - Hanger isn't particularly clear.
I think there are too many unknown variables (the caliber of the rifle ball, the exact arteries cut, the size of the horse, etc) for the death of the horse to be informative.
-
There are several things to consider.
From what I have read most shooting was done from a rest in the 18th c.
First many of the various newspaper accounts of the time here and in England are somewhat blown out of proportion as to accuracy etc. Propaganda is the modern term. Newspapers are full of BS to this day.
But still we have the other accounts, letters, journals etc.
We find that shots past 150 yards were discouraged at least in some locales.
For good reason. Many rifle owners, then and now, are not all that proficient. So some likely can't hit a man past 100-150 yards either do to lack of skill, eyesight, care in loading, state of the rifles bore etc.
Then we have wind etc etc.
So saying that ALL rifleman could hit a man a 200 is not realistic. That any rifleman could hit a man at 200 under any condition is not realistic since unless the shooter is REALLY good at reading wind.
A very light wind can have profound effects on the RB and a wind so light as to be unreadable can really move a ball at ranges past 50-75 yards.
So we have to temper all the old newspaper stories with current experience or more believable accounts.
The rifles were reasonably accurate the round ball is the same as then, the powder is better but this is not a major factor. So we can use todays experiences. A friend tells me that he could hit a 30" gong at about 500 pretty often with his 54 once he found the aiming point many feet up the rocky bluff behind it.
Where was the Bugleman's horse hit? The right spot at the base of the throat is quickly fatal from the front. However, we are not going to know. But we have to remember the "golden BB" theory sometimes luck, good or bad depending on which side of the muzzle one is on, trumps skill and even power. Nor will we know how big the ball was. But Hanger tells us he never saw an American rifle larger than 36 to the pound. Now we know this is not 100 percent accurate but I think its pretty close for "typical". I consider bores over 50-52 to be getting into "non-typical". But this does not mean non-existent. It means that for the uses at hand a 50 caliber is a good compromise and many rifles of the period are smaller than this, 44-47 for example. The rifle that J.J. Henry replaced his lost rifle with carried a ball of about 48 caliber and seems to larger than the rifle he lost from his comments.
So rifles in the "40s" were not unusual. The rifle was also short barreled.
So go out and SHOOT. If we can do it today chances are it was doable back in the day by a competent rifleman. People who demand absolute proof? Go find a shootable original FL rifle. Make some powder similar to what was available. Cast some balls of the right size from an original mould. Cost too much? Then the findings of seen in Dillon and Cline which seem to show good accuracy, there are even surviving targets from the 1830s, are going to have to do coupled with shooting with todays rifles and powders. If this is not good enough then the person with the questions is just SOL unless they have really deep pockets, a detailed knowledge of powder making in 1770-80 and is an expert rifle shot as icing on the cake.
Myself I have never seen a reason to doubt various accounts unless they are beyond what modern experience indicates. So a 300 yard shot? One hit in three? Sure.
400 yards? My friend's experience on another friends 500+ yard gong years ago says its possible. Remember that three men on horses is a big target. Deep and wide.
Dan
-
“A friend tells me that he could hit a 30" gong at about 500 pretty often with his 54 ONCE HE FOUND THE AIMING POINT MANY FEET UP THE ROCKY BLUFF BEHIND IT.”
That’s fine on a target work environment when you can shoot enough to find that aiming point, but unless there WAS a high bluff or even a high tree right behind a British Soldier even at 400 yards to get the correct aiming point AND the shooter had time to make enough ranging shots, such a shot is only by pure luck. (This may have actually occurred as far as the aiming point goes on the 400 yard shot recorded by Major Hanger BECAUSE Colonel Tarleton and he were only a few yards from the woods behind them and there MAY have been a tall tree to aim at behind them.) Further, your friend had no doubt ranged the distance ahead of time, did he not? Not possible in war time. Ranging shots in war time are misses and unless you can see WHERE the misses landed, which is rarely to never possible on a battlefield, you can’t adjust your hold to hit like you can on a target environment. Even someone good at guessing distance can’t guess it correctly that far over many different battlefields.
Of course better modern powder means a more accurate shot and that makes modern long range shooting more possible.
Major Hanger stated he had interviewed MANY American Riflemen and THEY said that only their best and most expert marksmen could hit a man’s head at 200 yards. ONLY THE BEST Riflemen. Could even that small a percentage of American Riflemen have made “One out of Three shots fired at 300 yards?” Maybe a truly exceptional rifleman, but I can’t buy even most of the FEW of most expert riflemen could do it. They were not shooting on a range where they knew the distance and could make the same hold over for long range hits. Even if the distance remains the same, every battle is going to be a different temperature, humidty, wind requirements, etc., etc., etc.and that means it is even harder to make such a shot. As stated in one of my previous posts, a FIRST shot hit within a 12 inch circled AFTER shooters have lots of experience firing on a known distance range is not a sure bet.
400 yards? Your friend’s experience PROVES it nothing but sheer luck on different battlefields, because they did not have the opportunity to fire ranging shots and figure out where to aim IF they had a hill or tall tree to aim at behind the enemy they were shooting at.
The information from the 1830’s was also taken from KNOWN DISTANCE ranges, were they not? They no doubt had established the distance and aiming point with aiming shots, did they not? They may or even probably used short starters in that period on target ranges as well. Same problems there already mentioned about your friend’s RANGE time as well.
Gus
-
If you spend a lot of time in the field, you can get pretty good at distancing things based on their size. I know that the average size of a moose is " X" and I have successfully estimated distance accurately out to 400 yds. I know what a moose looks like at that distance and since it's pretty close to a horse, I'm sure those riflemen back then would know too.
I also use my rifle enough that I have a pretty darn good idea about sight picture ...at least out to 300 yds. That is the distance of my range out back.
I would not discount the ability of the riflemen of that time. I fully believe that they knew what they were doing, and although you need a degree of luck , I sure wouldn't want them shooting at me even if the distance was 300 to 400 yds
-
This malarky about needing an aiming point above the target is just that. I NEVER use an aiming point above the target. I shoot with both eyes open and can see the target even if it is below line of sight. Just always done it that way and while I never competed in formal long range target shooting, I was a pretty darn good shot in my younger years. Killed a lot of game and tin cans using "Kentucky". And many of those shots were at unknown ranges. Matter of fact, I am not a very good judge of distances, I just pull the firearm up and shoot when it looks right. I know that isn't very scientific, its more instinctive. I won't claim to be a top shoot, but I am or was much better than the average. Mark
-
Mark, what ranges were you shooting at and what kind of rifles were you using? If the range was 110 - 120 yards you would not need to hold over. At 200 yards, s little hold over is necessary, but at 300 yards you have to hold 6 feet over the 200 yard sight setting.
Gus
-
Before I go further, I have to point out that even hitting a 30” circle often at 500 yards WHEN the correct aiming point was found by using ranging shots to get your aiming point at 500 yards on a 30" circle, that does NOT transfer to combat accuracy. A man’s torso is on average only HALF that width or less and the height of a man’s torso is only about 22.” IOW, one could hit that 30” target in many places it would have been a MISS on a man.
Bob,
Your suggestion that by noting the average size of game, you can give an approximation of range does make sense to a degree.
I can’t remember if I posted in this thread or another thread how I stumbled across an original 19th century account in some of my Civil War books on how they determined range by what parts of the human body can be distinguished. At longer distances you first can pick out the legs and as the range decreases; you can pick out the arms, the differentiate between the upper or lower parts of the arms, then n the hands, then the fingers at fairly close range, right down to where you can see “the whites of their eyes” at very close range where a volley of flintlock smoothbore muskets will tear apart an enemy linear formation with aimed fire as they did at the Battle of Breed’s Hill or Bunker Hill. I copied the information and gave it to the Instructors at the Marine Corps Scout Sniper Instructor School, but DID NOT tell them where the information came from because they had a tendency to shrug off some older information. They came back that afternoon and I got a very excited call from them that it WORKED and where in the (Heck) did I get the information? That’s when I told them where it came from. They actually included that information in range estimating classes from then on and that was in the mid 1980’s.
Now I don’t know if the average 18th century rifleman knew that, but he most certainly had some good knowledge of how tall the average British Soldier was at an average of 5 feet, 6 inches. THAT information was highly useful for a 300 yard shot, btw, IF the American Rifleman spent time shooting at 300 yards in practice. 300 yard shooting was not anywhere close to the ranges they often fired at target matches, but some could have tried some ranging shots at that distance. The reason that information was useful is because the average height of a British Soldier was ALMOST the amount of drop a round ball bullet drops from 200 yards to 300 yards, even though it was ½ foot to 1 foot shy of the bullet drops listed in the tables in this thread and other places. Before we use this information more, I must suggest we drop back a bit to hitting at 200 yards.
Let’s start with what seems to be the agreed maximum point blank range of a Long rifle at 110 to 120 yards. The bullet drops a couple inches under two feet more from 100 yards to 200 yards. THAT means if the Rifleman aimed at the upper part of the head of an enemy soldier, the ball would land in his chest or abdomen and both would have been killing or extremely disabling shots. HERE there is a SOLID aiming point on the enemy soldier for the correct elevation, so it SEEMS like that would be a rather easy shot for an experienced Rifleman because of the solid aiming point. We are only talking about elevation adjustment here and we are not including how far “groups” opened up at 200 yards, however, it seems that if the rifle shot was centered on the enemy’s head and the wind and other factors didn’t drastically alter the bullet’s flight, it would stay in the average width of a British Soldier’s torso of about 12 – 13 inches when fired at 300 yards. The PROBLEM with this thinking is American Soldiers missed so often beyond 150 yards, that it tells us most of them DID NOT have practice shooting at 300 yards. However, let’s take what the BEST marksmen of the American Riflemen could do to reliably hit a man’s head at 200 yards and extend our range from there.
The problem is UNLIKE 200 yard shooting where one has a SOLID aiming point on the human body, one must hold WAY over the top of the head of the enemy soldier at 300 yards to hit him. Here’s another point where shooting many MODERN made flintlock rifles can lead to erroneous information. Today we often or even usually use front and rear sights that are HIGHER than the original front sight blades and that’s a problem. With our higher front sight blades, it may be possible to line up the middle or bottom of the front sight blades for longer range, but it is less likely original shorter front sight blades will allow one to do that and get an accurate sight picture to aim. If the front sight is not tall enough to use the bottom of the front sight to aim in at longer ranges, then you are in a real mess and you have to hold over the target at which you are shooting and not actually SEE the target when you fire the shot. Bad juju for accurate shooting there.
OK, so if the front sight blade is not tall enough to use the bottom of the blade at 300 yards, then one is stuck holding over the target where you can’t see the target because you have to hold over at least the height of a soldier (and a bit more) to drop the ball into the enemy’s chest or abdomen. If thee is no hill or large rock or tree right behind the soldier, even KNOWING you have to sight the full height of a man over your target doesn’t do much good even if you go back and forth a few times between the target and hold over. Even with the knowledge of how much hold over one has to use, it becomes more a matter of luck that the rifle will go off when aimed at the correct elevation. Also, we are ASSUMING there is virtually a perfect sight picture when the shot goes off. How many times does THAT happen in the real world? As noted earlier, if one is up in a tree and can look DOWN at the target, there is a better chance of being able to pick out a spot on the ground that was the height of a man plus a bit OVER a soldier’s head at 300 yards to AIM AT and thus have the best chance of hitting one’s target. Unfortunately, trees were not always available to climb into to make that shot, though.
Another thing we haven’t discussed is that American Riflemen no doubt aligned their sights, but HOW did they do it? DID they align the very top of their front sight blade with the top of their rear sight? Or did they have the front sight a little higher than that when they normally aimed? If one is in the woods, I suspect they held the front sight a little over the top of the rear sight to better see it, though that may not be true. All we know is that normally to get the most accurate groups and shots today, we use the top of the front sight aligned to the top of the rear.
Now here is where we have to add in the stress of combat that one NEVER has when shooting targets at long range on a rifle range. Those of us who have shot competition know we often or usually don’t shoot as well during matches as we do in practice. This is because there is added pressure in even informal target matches. However, that is no where NEAR the stress pressure in combat that makes perfect sight alignment distance judging less to far less accurate than in hunting. Most people when talking about shooting at 300 yards or more today don’t have that added stress pressure because no one is shooting at them or even likely to be shooting at them.
What we have NOT discussed is the Bullet Drop from 200 to 400 yards or the drop distance between 300 and 400 yards. We know the drop distance between 200 and 300 yards was a little more than an average British Soldier’s height, so how much more does it drop at 400? Another average British Soldier’s height? I doubt it and suppose it was MORE than that, though I don’t have the drop tables to prove it. So when they tried a 400 yard shot, that would mean they had to hold over the enemy soldier by AT LEAST TWO full heights of the average British Soldier, if not almost certainly MORE than that. How do you find a QUICK aiming point for that on the battlefield? The answer is most of the time you don’t, it just isn’t possible most of the tme. This and wind deflection is what makes hitting at 400 yards on a battlefield SHEER luck even when done by the very best marksmen of the day.
Finally I go back to the post I wrote that not even the BEST Riflemen on The Marine Corps Rifle Team in 1975 could GUARANTEE a first round hit at the 12” bullseye at 300 yards almost 200 years after our time period and when they most certainly had rifles that were capable of shooting HALF that group size if the shooters held it that well. Maybe some have missed the fact that the 12” bullseye mentioned is the approximate width of a man’s torso??? Also, that range was definitely KNOWN and the the shooters HAD the correct sight settings to hit the center of that 12” bullseye at 300 yards. While maybe ¾ of those shooters could guarantee a first round hit in the bullseye, they had an immense advantage over Riflemen of our time period.
Gus
-
Let me throw this link out here. Take note of the 200 yard shooting by, D. Taylor Sapergia, with his flintlock. I think this is pretty telling of 200 yard accuracy that can be expected with the round ball. Taylor is revered as a good shot with a flintlock, and his target IMHO is good. This was done when we use to keep a "Thread" (here on ALR) for those wanting to give 200 yard round ball a try.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=3533.msg58825#msg58825
-
I wonder if we should revive our long range shooting thread and base it on this thread?
-
First, let me say I found both Taylor’s and Daryl’s targets to be very respectable, indeed, especially as how they did not shoot prone – which would have made the target scores even better. Taylor shooting better offhand than in sitting DEFINITELY has my respect!!
I am not trying to be morbid, but the pictures of the targets in front of Taylor and Daryl, easily gives one an idea of what the hits on a man size target would have been at 200 yards. If the white center square was 6” x 6”, then Taylor got what from my experience would have been one “V” and Daryl got two “V’s.” Not sure if I’m “reading” Daryl’s target correctly and I may not be giving him full credit. (I apologize now, in case I’m mistaken.) These could have been “head shots” had that been the aiming point on a British Soldier in 1776.
Again with my poor vision I may be mistaken, but it looks like Taylor would have put at least 6 killing/disabling shots into the body of an enemy soldier and maybe as many as 7 or 8. I would not have wanted to be an enemy of Taylor’s in 1776 with that kind of shooting!
We have to realize some things from these results. I may be wrong, but from reading other posts by Taylor, I assume he used a tight ball/patch combination and short starter that an 18th century Rifleman did not have. That gives him advantage over an 18th century Rifleman. However, Taylor’s best shots were offhand and since he did not shoot prone, we don’t know how good the target may have been and I’m sure it would have been better. Finally, though pressure was on to shoot a good score, he did not have anyone shooting at him and thus he shot better because of it. PLEASE understand I’m not trying to criticize Taylor’s shooting as that was a fine target he shot. I’m just trying to put it in the perspective of this thread.
What I would EXTREMELY interested in knowing are:
1. What is the front sight height of Taylor’s rifle and how would it compare to an 18th century rifle?
2. What sight picture did Taylor use at 200 yards?
3. Did Taylor have to “hold over” his normal aiming point at 100 yards and if so, how much?
Thanks,
Gus
-
I wonder if we should revive our long range shooting thread and base it on this thread?
CS,
For purposes of discussion for this thread, could you please answer questions 2. and 3. in my post directly above, on the way you shot the 200 yard course? Thanks.
Gus
-
Gus, Taylor would have to answer that. I can only speak for myself on my target which I still have and will post a picture of it in a few minutes. Now mine, (like Daryl's) was shot with a cap lock, which mine is now a flintlock.
-
Gus, Taylor would have to answer that. I can only speak for myself on my target which I still have and will post a picture of it in a few minutes. Now mine, (like Daryl's) was shot with a cap lock which is now a flintlock.
Sure I understand about Taylor.
By asking these questions, I’m trying to test my theory that American Riflemen could aim at the head of a British Soldier at 200 yards and bullet drop would cause many or most of the shots to land in the torso of an enemy soldier. In the stress of combat, that would give a definite advantage with Riflemen not having to figure out where to aim. Though I believe my theory “works on paper,” I am not sure it stands up in the real world.
Gus
-
Here is my target, and the rifle I used (cap lock at the time) with fix iron sights. If I remember right I believe I held about two feet above my target (not real sure now), and about 2 feet right because of the cross wind I was reading at the time, done so by just the feel of the wind itself. I don't know where shot #4 - kneeling went?
The way you see the target is the way I shot it. My sight heights remain pretty much unchanged from that day. Bottom of rear notch 5/32nds, and 3/16" front blade. This particular rifle is zeroed for 25 & 50 Yards with the 50 yard zero "hold" shaded just a tad high of center.
Above each nickel is where the ball's struck. The holes are taped over as I was going to reuse this target the following year and never did. I estimate 8 kill/wounded shots out of 10 fired, (4 kneeling & 4 offhand).
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi289.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fll240%2FJoethebowM%2F200YardTarget001_zps685411fb.jpg&hash=809411d2a247b540dd6039450944d8e1fb5c5903) (http://s289.photobucket.com/user/JoethebowM/media/200YardTarget001_zps685411fb.jpg.html)
-
Good info, CS, Thanks.
Ok, with the way you sighted your rifle for today’s shorter range shooting and with a 2 foot hold over, it looks like you would have gotten most of your shots in the bottom of an enemy’s torso at 200 yards, if you would have aimed at an enemy’s head.
If your rifle was sighted for longer range, like we are assuming the American riflemen did back then, then aiming at the head or even the enemy’s hat would have dropped the balls into close to the center of the body.
Though the results of one rifle and one target can not be taken as proof, your results seem to suggest the theory works. Maybe we are getting closer to understanding how they aimed for 200 yard shots?
Gus
-
I think we have to look at the extreme vertical spread north to south and ask the question of how consistent can one be with the hold over guesstimating from one shot to the next? The spread on my target is roughly 18 - 19 inches north to south.
My load was (and this is factual as it's the same load I always had used in this rifle) up to and through this target being shot;
65 grains 3fg Goex
.018 Pillow Ticking lubed with TC 1000+,,, and spit added to patch on loading
.445 Hornady round ball (short starter was used)
#11 RWS Cap
Est. Muzzle Vel. - 1895 fps (taken from my old Lyman Black Powder Handbook)
(Later I switched to just spit patching, and recently to TOW Mink oil)
Barrel; .45 caliber - 36" x 7/8" Green Mountain Barrel - 1 in 60 twist
Just some additional information in case it's helpful?
Note; The object was to get all the shots in the center 6" x 6" white bull. If one wants to equate the bullseye to the head, the drop roughs in at roughly holding 36" above center of the bullseye. I recall holding 24" (in that neighborhood) above the top of the cardboard.
Of course, you could equate the top of the cardboard to the top of the shoulders and come up with a completely different look on effectiveness of just taking out enemy combatants.
-
I think we have to look at the extreme vertical spread north to south and ask the question of how consistent can one be with the hold over guesstimating from one shot to the next? The spread on my target is roughly 18 - 19 inches north to south.
Note; The object was to get all the shots in the center 6" x 6" white bull. If one wants to equate the bullseye to the head, the drop roughs in at roughly holding 36" above center of the bullseye. I recall holding 24" (in that neighborhood) above the top of the cardboard.
Of course, you could equate the top of the cardboard to the top of the shoulders and come up with a completely different look on effectiveness of just taking out enemy combatants.
Sorry, CS, I must have misunderstood you earlier.
I thought you meant you were holding 24” above the center of the target and in fact you were holding about 36” above the center of the target. So the actual drop of the bullet to what you were trying to hit was 36”. That is a good bit of difference. So, if one used even the top of the head or hat to aim at: there’s a good chance you would only hit a soldier in or below the lower torso (in the legs) with your rifle, the way it is sighted.
You, Taylor and Daryl have shown how hard it is to hit a head shot at 200 yards, even though you might/probably been more accurate had you shot from prone. However, even with the added advantage of prone shooting, it seems to me to demonstrate that a period Rifleman who could reliably make a head shot at 200 yards had to truly have been an exceptional rifleman.
Gus
-
[in fact you were holding about 36” above the center of the target]
Yes, that would equate, so around what I determined to be 24" high off the top of the cardboard, (36" from the bullseye center).
Something I didn't mention before and it might be pertinent to my target? At my Range, from our firing line the ground raises 21 feet over 300 yards (7 feet per 100 yards). You really can't see the rise, but it's there. Two different contractors with their measuring equipment shot this with their instruments years ago and came up with the same measurement. Don't know if this makes a difference or not? So at 200 yards the range is actually 14 feet higher then at the firing line.
-
[in fact you were holding about 36” above the center of the target]
Yes, that would equate, so around what I determined to be 24" high off the top of the cardboard, (36" from the bullseye center).
Something I didn't mention before and it might be pertinent to my target? At my Range, from our firing line the ground raises 21 feet over 300 yards (7 feet per 100 yards). You really can't see the rise, but it's there. Two different contractors with their measuring equipment shot this with their instruments years ago and came up with the same measurement. Don't know if this makes a difference or not? So at 200 yards the range is actually 14 feet higher then at the firing line.
My amateur ballistician de arm-chair degree says, no significant effect from a 2% grade. ;) Would love to hear any argument to the contrary.
-
I wonder if we should revive our long range shooting thread and base it on this thread?
I'd love to, now that I have a coal-burner to launch balls. But i'm all busy with hunting and firewooding for the next 2 months. ;)
-
14 feet higher target at 300 than from the shooting area? Actually it demonstrates two things.
1. You have to aim lower when shooting uphill or downhill because of the curved trajectory of a bullet. So unless I’m too tired tonight, that means you may have been using more hold over than what is required on flat ground. (I am not sure this is right as I’m tired, but I think so. Grin.)
2. What to the naked eye LOOKS like flat ground could conceal the fact the target is higher or lower at longer range. Thus making figuring out the necessary “hold over, a bit more difficult.
Gus
-
My amateur ballistician de arm-chair degree says, no significant effect from a 2% grade. ;) Would love to hear any argument to the contrary.
Wade,
A WWII era .30-06 round or a 7.62mm round only has a bullet drop from zero to 300 yards of about 12 - 14 inches, so it would not matter significantly for them.
However, round balls drop about 6 FEET just between 200 and 300 yards, so I'm fairly certain a diiference would be noticeable. I could be mistaken, though.
Gus
-
Gus, according to the Lyman Black Powder Hand Book, the load I used makes mention of a 48.53" drop at 200 yards. This may explain the lost (12 inches of hold over)? If so, no wonder the book never seemed quite on for my shooting purposes?
Wade, I think it would be fun to revive this in 200 yard shooting in the Spring. :)
-
CS,
I am not sure, but I don’t think a target that would be roughly 8 or 9 feet higher at 200 than your shooting position would account for a 12” difference in hold over. However, I’m not sure with round balls.
Gus
-
Gus, the target would be 14 feet higher at 200 yards, 21 feet at 300 yards. Also, my son just told me moments ago (he asked me what I was doing and I filled him in on this thread a bit) anyway, he said he thought they shot that at 0 to 27 feet higher at 300 yards, so if this is the case, it could be 18 feet at 200 yards?
-
Gus, the target would be 14 feet higher at 200 yards, 21 feet at 300 yards. Also, my son just told me moments ago (he asked me what I was doing and I filled him in on this thread a bit) anyway, he said he thought they shot that at 0 to 27 feet higher at 300 yards, so if this is the case, it could be 18 feet at 200 yards?
CS,
Sorry I misunderstood earlier. My bust.
14 feet difference at 200 yards should be noticeably different than flat ground. 21 Feet higher at 300 is close to or within “tree climbing shooting position” height.
Not sure 14 feet at 200 would mean the difference of a full foot in drop, though. I just don’t know.
Guess I better pack it in tonight when I’m so tired I’m missing things like this. Good night to all.
Gus
-
Gus, according to the Lyman Black Powder Hand Book, the load I used makes mention of a 48.53" drop at 200 yards. This may explain the lost (12 inches of hold over)? If so, no wonder the book never seemed quite on for my shooting purposes?
Wade, I think it would be fun to revive this in 200 yard shooting in the Spring. :)
CS,
OK, went back and re-read this post once I was not so tired. Grin.
Wow, a drop of 48.5 inches at 200 yards seems like a LOT of drop even for a Round Ball at that range. However, I went back to the drop table Dan posted on page 5 and that showed a drop of just over 40 inches at that range for what I think was a .50 or .54 caliber. So the drop you mentioned from the Lyman book was probably a good estimated drop.
This next part gets confusing to me to describe, so I hope I don’t butcher it too much. Grin.
There is a difference between the bullet drop of when a rifle barrel is level to the ground and when we use sights. Bullet drop tables NORMALLY mean when a rifle barrel is level to the ground and when the ball exits the muzzle, the bullet immediately begins dropping due to the force of gravity. When we use sights, we are elevating the muzzle a bit depending on the range we sight in at. With the elevated muzzle and even with gravity working on the ball as soon as it exits the muzzle, the ball “rises” to the area on the target we are aiming at. Normally, the ball is still rising as it goes through the target and after it reaches its maximum elevation, it begins to fall and somewhere downrange, it once again would hit a target in the same place we sight our rifles in for and then fall still further as the ball travels even further until it hits the ground. Now isn’t THAT confusing? Grin. Let’s see if an example can make it easier to understand.
In the military, we were always taught that a rough sight-in for BattleSight Zero was done at the 1,000 inch range or roughly just a bit under 28 yards. What was great about this was if you received a different rifle in combat zone or never had a chance to zero it before, a relatively SHORT range could be used to get a rough zero on your rifle. Where the strike of the bullet hit on the 1,000 inch range target when the bullet was still climbing, was roughly equal to where it would FALL down to at about 225 yards downrange. (Now that is not as good of a Battlesight Zero taken from the 300 yard prone firing position, of course, but it was a DARN site better than having no Battlesight Zero on your rifle at all ! )
Round balls traveling at about 1900 FPS at the muzzle are much slower than say a .30 caliber modern bullet traveling at about 2,750 FPS. Round balls are also not as efficient going through the atmosphere as elongated bullets. So when you sight in a Round Ball rifle at 25 yards when the ball is still rising, it will fall down to that point at a much closer distance downrange than a modern .30 caliber round. If you sight in at 50 or 100 yards when the ball is still rising, it will go further before the ball drops back down to that point downrange.
What I’m getting at is I believe the bullet drop mentioned in the Lyman book is from a rifle barrel that is parallel to the ground. UNLESS it states at what range the rifle is sighted-in at. That would give more drop than what you experience with a rifle sighted in for 25 or 50 yards.
Gus
-
Morning Gus,
Well, on page 174 of the Lyman Black Powder Handbook, under the heading of (C. Effects of Uphill and Downhill Shooting), the book does address this. Whether or not their testing was done on a completely level range, I don't know? I would assume it was since they were doing comprehensive data testing.
Getting back to head shots... Since you've studied the riflemen of the ARW, is their any reports of when the riflemen opened fire on the British lines, and at what distance? I ask because if riflemen opened fire when the British were moving into formation at (let's say) 2 to 4 ranks deep, perhaps the ball was passing over the front ranks and making "head shot" in the rear ranks? To target an enemy's head, IMHO is simply a low percentage shot. Using the head of your enemy as a center point for hold over makes much more sense to me then anything else. That ball dropping into an enemy's - chest, belly, thigh, arm, or leg, still takes them out of action.
From what I've been given to understand, riflemen's sights were "fine" which I take to mean low since (again from what I'm given to understand) surviving rifles from the ARW, have low sights. To bad one of these rifles can't be investigated to determine not only the range they were sighted for, but their load as well. It's very possible one of these rifles (IMHO) has a "ring" developed in the bore from where the ball was seated on the charge.
Always a pleasure reading your post's, Gus. :)
-
CS,
Unfortunately, there is very little to no information on what distance/s Riflemen opened fire during the ARW. Heck, there is darn little information on what distances infantrymen and artillery opened fire in most battles, so that is not unexpected. The account of George Roger’s Clark’s Riflemen moving within 120 yards of Fort Sackville at Vincennes (Now Indiana) and some getting within 30 yards of the fort before opening fire is one of the rare instances the range was mentioned in an overall general way
The number of British Ranks used in the ARW was ordered by General Clinton (after he took over as the Commander of all British forces in April 1778) to be “Loose Order” which meant just two ranks and each soldier was about a foot and a little more apart. That order remained if effect until the end of the war. Prior to that, the normal order was three ranks, where/when it could be done by the lay of the land on the battlefields. So the first major battle they probably used “Loose Order” was the Battle of Monmouth on 28 June 1778. The Hessians remained in the normal “Continental” formations of three ranks deep with only a few inches between soldiers, though, until late in the war when they also adopted the “Loose Order.” I’m not sure if it is known when that was.
Now of course this is a LOT of generalizing and not exactly true in all points for all British Forces in each and every battle. “Light Troops” used the two rank formations even before Clinton ordered it overall, though the Light Troops were normally made up of only one company from each Regiment. That is a generalization, also, because sometimes they reinforced the “Light Companies” with one or two companies of the “Regular Infantry” Companies of a Regiment/s when the British felt the Light Troops needed the support. (I’m REALLY not trying to be confusing, though it may seem like it. Grin.)
Legend has it that the primary targets of the American Riflemen were British Officers or at least they were ordered to shoot Officers first, when they could. Of course, there wasn’t always an Officer to shoot at. Lower ranked Officers were in the British Ranks and could be identified by either the Gold or Silver trim on their uniforms. Higher ranked Officers were at the side of the formations or immediately behind them. The Highest Ranked Officers were back far enough they could see how most of their forces were deployed and where they could order changes of their forces during the battle. I think that the Highest Ranked British Officers were often out of sight of American Riflemen or just too far away to reliably hit them. So, perhaps the most common target for American Riflemen was Junior British Officers in the ranks. If a shot missed them, it might hit a soldier beside them or behind them.
I personally believe the mention of “the Best American Riflemen” being able to reliably hit a head size target at 200 yards (whether or not they REALLY could have reliably done it) was meant as their accuracy potential and not that they actually tried to hit the heads of British Officers. American Riflemen would surely have known how difficult it would have been to hit an enemy in the head at that range DURING a battle.
Though I can not document this, I DO believe American Rifleman AIMED at the Heads or even the Hats of Officers and other opposing soldiers, when the opposing soldiers were far enough away. This because it is a natural “finer” aiming point for the rifle balls to drop into the torso of the opposing soldiers when they were between say 150 and 200 yards. This comes from actual experience on my part and that of many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Marines and Soldiers over the years.
On the annual rifle requalification courses, both Marines and Soldiers shoot at various types of silhouette targets. Marines shoot at what we call “Dog Targets” for the rapid fire stages at 200 and 300 yards. That target is a silhouette of the upper half of a man (what one may have to shoot at when an enemy is laying down) and though at 26” wide, it is wider than a man’s torso and arms at say 22” on average. Our 500 yard target is a full silhouette 40 inches tall (including the head) and 20 inches wide. (This one is actually a really good approximation of an enemy’s head down to the bottom of his torso.) Now we are initially taught to aim at the bottom of each target to sight in and fire, but MANY Marines have figured out a BETTER aiming point for both targets is the bottom of the head because you can draw a finer “bead” on that part of the target or IOW, the front sight is about the correct thickness to easily center on the bottom of the head. This is true with modern US Rifles from the M1903 right up to the M16A2. When using the bottom of the head as your aiming point, individual scores go up and in the case of experienced shooters, it is easy to shoot perfect scores at 200 and 300 yards and for the most experienced shooters, to easily shoot a perfect score at 500 yards. Of course a perfect score on the Dog Targets would mean MOST of your shots would hit an enemy at 200 and 300 yards, while a perfect score at 500 yards means ALL your shots would hit an enemy at that range IF the enemy was not moving.
I have never fired the Army Rifle Qualification course with pop up silhouettes, so I can not make exact statements about it. I have asked Soldiers who I knew were good shooters and they told me they also used the head of the silhouette to aim at, as well when at around 200 to 300 yards. The Army quit firing at 500 yards in the 60’s and their furthest silhouette they shoot at is either 300 or 360 yards by some reports.
Now with the “fine” front sights we normally see on original Longrifles, it would also be easy to shoot at the base of the enemy soldiers head or the center of the head and that gives a better aiming point and that transfers to better hit potential. This is why I believe that is where they aimed at 150 – 200 yards along with the fact it allowed for bullet drop into the torso of an enemy.
Gus
-
Hello Gus,
I agree completely with your analysis;
"I personally believe the mention of “the Best American Riflemen” being able to reliably hit a head size target at 200 yards (whether or not they REALLY could have reliably done it) was meant as their accuracy potential and not that they actually tried to hit the heads of British Officers."
"I have never fired the Army Rifle Qualification course with pop up silhouettes, so I can not make exact statements about it. I have asked Soldiers who I knew were good shooters and they told me they also used the head of the silhouette to aim at, as well when at around 200 to 300 yards."
This is true, at least in my case. I qualified as Expert (USA) in 1974 at Ft. Jackson, SC, and re'qualified as Expert once again at Ft. Riley, KS in 1976. What would be perceived as the "chin" area was my point of aim on the pop ups.
That was a long time ago... :)
-
If the "look" angie is steep enough, either up hill of down it effectively reduces the range the bullet "sees" in relation gravity.
So while the bullet may travel 400 yards its range effected by gravity may be 1/3 less if the angle is steep.
So far as at what range they opened fire in the 18th c?
The man at Breeds Hill shot for 15 minutes with people handing him loaded "muskets" (had to be rifles but the British officer who detailed this said muskets), before an English unit killed him with volley fire. The officer was of the opinion that this one man standing on a parapet killed most of the officers and NCOs at that fight.
So how far did the British advance in 15 minutes, did they advance the whole time or was this guy shooting as they were forming up? We don't know and we are not going to find out.
That orders were issued in some commands not to shoot past 150 yards tells me that they were shooting beyond this distance. 150 yards is also used as a distance in the late 1750s when the writer was discussion arms he would prefer for an indian fight. Stating he would rather shoot something that would allow him to put a ball within 6" or a foot of point of aim at 150 than a smoothbore which would not hit a 2 ft x 6ft board at that distance. So we are at 150 yards again.
Its a common theme I think because its an easy distance. Any reasonably accurate rifle will hit a man at 150 yards even a 36 cal will do this. This is about 2.5 times the effective range of the typical musket armed infantryman in the 18th c. A rifleman prone or behind a wall or tree would have to be EXTREMELY unlucky to be killed by a musket ball at 150 yards unless the shooter was aiming at someone else. A group of riflemen shooting from cover could shoot 2-3 shots if they started at 200 yards before the infantry even got within range. If you have 20 good riflemen and shoot one shot at 150 and another at 100 they could take out almost 1/2 an infantry company of the time and shoot an officer or two off his horse in the bargain.
I can't believe this has run on this long.
People need to go shoot their rifles or at least do some reading and stop typing for awhile because while some good points have been brought up, typing is not going to answer the question of the accuracy of rifles in 1776.
Dan
-
Dan,
Do you have a reference or link about the man firing for 15 minutes? The reason I ask is that SOUNDS like he was one of the American Marksmen/snipers who fired at the British from Charlestown prior to the British advance up Breed’s Hill. This caused the British ships to fire on Charlestown and send a landing party in to set it ablaze.
It is possible the American Marksman fired from the fortifications on Breed’s Hill, BUT if so, he did not begin firing until the British were within 50 yards when General Putnam ordered the first firing. That’s still musket range.
Most accounts say that American General Putnam did not ALLOW his men to fire until the Brit’s got within 50 yards of the American fortifications. Again, Musket range.
Colonel, later Major General, John Stark was allowed to choose his position when he and his New Hampshire men came to Breed’s Hill as reinforcements. He saw the British might attack the American flank, so chose that ground. Now, this is interesting. He had STAKES driven into the ground 100 FEET (33 yards) from his position and ordered his men not to fire until the Brits got past that line. Again, Musket range.
Further, the Americans who fought at Breed’s Hill were all New England troops/militia to whom the rifle was almost unknown.
Now “anything is possible” and there MIGHT have been one or a few rifles there, but it is highly unlikely even a few rifles were used there.
Gus
-
Dan,
No doubt American Riflemen were firing at more than 150 yards and MISSING so much they were ordered not to fire beyond that range.
You wrote: “A group of riflemen shooting from cover could shoot 2-3 shots if they started at 200 yards before the infantry even got within range. If you have 20 good riflemen and shoot one shot at 150 and another at 100 they could take out almost 1/2 an infantry company of the time and shoot an officer or two off his horse in the bargain.”
I don’t discount that as not being possible, but do you have accounts of what battles that happened? The reason I ask is because it seems you are suggesting something that was ordinary and I really would like to know where/what battles that actually happened.
Gus
-
I've been following this thread with great interest. I hope to add something from a shooters point of view.
A few years ago one of our local clubs held a side match at the end of a days shooting. They called it the Tim Murphy shoot. The target was a steel silhouette upper torso painted like a British officer. The range was set at 200 yards ( longest that could be safely shot at this club). There were about 15 regular shooters.
The rules : Flintlock only load and shoot from the bag and horn (no tackle box shooters)
offhand only
Shoot one shot, hit and move to next round miss and yer out
Weather was overcast with a 10 mph wind with some gusting, wind quartering hard across the range.
The first round eliminated half the shooters and 4 or 5 rounds later and there were 2. Myself and another shooter. Long story shortened we went 12 more rounds till someone missed. Both rifles are good examples of what would have been carried in the 1770s. I remember his rifle was .54 cal built by Brad Emig with sights typical of todays builds.
My rifle is a .62 cal early Reading style with low original type rear and low barley corn front. Sighted to hit point of aim at 75 yards. No short starter was used and no wiping between shots.
Shooting a 120 grain charge my hold was head height and a man width into the wind to hit center mass.
I think that's about as close as were going to get without shooting an original long gun. Just like today not all that carried a rifle gun were good shots. But give a few of us a good rest and a calm day and we could knock a few Red Coats off their horses at 3 or 4 hundred paces.
-
D. Bowman,
Thanks for chiming in.
Even with all the years I spent around Snipers and the best NM shooters in the country (Armed Forces personnel and Civilians), I am MIGHTILY impressed you and another shooter ran over 10 hits each on that target from the Offhand position at 200 yards.
That is some truly excellent shooting by any standard. Congratulations.
Do you happen to know how wide and how tall the torso area of that silhouette was?
Do you happen to know where the shooter with the .54 cal. rifle was holding?
Great info on your charge and where you held to hit the target. I’ll bet your shoulder “let you know about it” after shooting 12 shots with a 120 grain charge and a .62 cal. ball. Grin.
Since your rifle is the same caliber as a Baker Rifle, I am also wondering what your barrel length and twist rate is in that rifle?
Gus
-
I don't have measurements of the target but i have helped move it a few times. It is about the size of an average mans upper body.
My rifle has a 44inch barrel 1-66 twist. The 2 inch wide early style butt plate helps with the recoil. I think i was more worn out from the intense heckling from the bystanders. Most who i call dear friends. but i wouldn't have it any other way.
-
Dan,
No doubt American Riflemen were firing at more than 150 yards and MISSING so much they were ordered not to fire beyond that range.
You wrote: “A group of riflemen shooting from cover could shoot 2-3 shots if they started at 200 yards before the infantry even got within range. If you have 20 good riflemen and shoot one shot at 150 and another at 100 they could take out almost 1/2 an infantry company of the time and shoot an officer or two off his horse in the bargain.”
I don’t discount that as not being possible, but do you have accounts of what battles that happened? The reason I ask is because it seems you are suggesting something that was ordinary and I really would like to know where/what battles that actually happened.
Gus
The 200 yards thing is supposition like almost everything else posted here has been since apparently nobody has bothered to shoot their rifles past 50 or 100 yards.
I have given THREE reference books to read. ALL with period descriptions. I have referenced Dillon who's book has targets shot with original unaltered FL rifles PLUS old targets found with original rifles. So I suggest people do some reading and relieve me of doing research that nobody appartently wants to hear anyway. Oh I have a friend with an original FL match rifle, unaltered as near as we can tell. It shoots well enough to win but fear of touch hole erosion limits its use. To me this whole discussion has been based on supposition by people, who at least for the most part have not done the research but think its a cool topic and have to jump it and post.
Have you EVER shot at a mansized silhouette at 200 yards with a round ball rifle? Or a ring target or even a rock on a hillside? Ever shoot game at 150? Ever shoot a flintlock at 300? I have done ALL these things and shot my match rifle at 300+ a couple of months ago just for the heck of it. At 300 meters a 50 caliber RB will know a pig silhouette of its stand btw. Since some in the past have made the ridiculous statement (again based entirely on supposition) that a 50 caliber rb would not produce a fatal wound at this distance.
But of course it much easier to rattle on about stuff with a keyboard than to go out and shoot and experiment or read the documentation from the past.
Modern military qualification, which is almost totally irrelevant.
In 1970 for example qualifying in basic there was no way to hold on the silhouette's head since the sights on the M16E1 were not easily adjustable. Other than cranking the front sight up or down with a bullet point they were essentially fixed.
While I agree with a Kentucky hold on the head at longer ranges is a good idea and provides a good aiming point we have no idea what they really did and trying to get inside someones head from 1775 is impossible. Nor is it practical in real life for some draftee who will qualify in basic and may never be on a rifle range again in his military career.
Also the front sight on an 1903 Springfield is far narrower (50% or so) than on the later service rifles, but of course they were never fired for qualification on silhouette targets SFAIK so having the front sight similar in width of a silhouette's head was not a factor.
BTW he rifleman at Breed's Hill only fired for 10-12 minutes not 15. My mistake.
I suggest that those interested read chapter 5 of "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse. "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution" by Huddleston is out of print.
Dan
-
Once over 58 caliber and certainly by 62 the performance at longer ranges is better. My Manton style rifle using a .662 ball more effective at ranges over 150 than a 50-54 is. Its easier to hit stuff and seems more consistent.
However, finding original American rifles in calibers over 52-54 is problematical. Hanger tells us that he never saw a rifle over 36 to the pound. We know this is not 100% true but we also know that there are a number of rifles in England or have returned from England that are bonifide Rev-War rifles that have been in collections and not recut that are 50 caliber and under. There are a lot of early rifles HERE that served well into the percussion era and are now smooth having been bored smooth at sometime in their perhaps 100 year plus service life.
THEN we have complaints from the 1750s that the rifle is far more economical than the trade gun, which was generally 58-62. If the rifle is 58-62 then this would not be significant enough to rouse complaints about the rifle hurting trade.
But shooters today look at old rifles and think they are the bore size now they were when new and this is virtually never the case unless the rifle fell from use before the bore was enlarged through "freshing". Such as being taken to England as a war trophy. Even surviving rifles here in America are generally 50 caliber or under of they are still rifled. And surviving smooth rifles are often still rifle caliber. Not fowling piece bore size.
This is why I shot at the "bad guy" silhouette at 285 with a 50 rather than my 54. I considered it to be more "typical".
The lack of GOOD data in bore sizes over a large number of rifles and even rifling twists where possible is one of my pet peeves. There needs to be a study of surviving rifle BORES to determine, with a bore scope, if the rifle really is a smooth rifle or if it has some surviving rifling down the bore 10-12".
Dan
-
Gentlemen,
So far, there have been 12 pages of BS shot and not one shot at paper.
Please don’t take offence but, not every citizen soldier was an ‘expert marksman’ nor were all arms capable of the accuracy alluded to in many of the period writings otherwise, there wouldn’t have been the need to form the National Rifle Association 100 years later …
Gunny Hathcock’s exploits are legendary but, how many misses did he have?
As I recall reading, didn’t “White Feather” have to ‘walk-in’ the famous shot he took with Ma Duce?
How do you think he would have done with a rack grade rifle and issue ammunition?
Obviously, better than the average Gyrene or he wouldn’t have been chosen for the rifle team.
Instead of speculating, gather information.
The first item is to get on paper at the desired distance with the best rifle(s) with the best load(s) with the best shooter(s) using a scopes, aperture or open sights.
Get an average of what those combinations are capable of.
THEN, you can start to ‘de-tune’ the combination(s) to suit whatever fanciful approximation of ‘period correctness’ your heart desires.
Hallelujah!
Here we have actual shooters with photos and/or actual witnesses (who are still living).
From Candle Snuffer –
Let me throw this link out here. Take note of the 200 yard shooting by, D. Taylor Sapergia, with his flintlock. I think this is pretty telling of 200 yard accuracy that can be expected with the round ball. Taylor is revered as a good shot with a flintlock, and his target IMHO is good. This was done when we use to keep a "Thread" (here on ALR) for those wanting to give 200 yard round ball a try.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=3533.msg58825#msg58825
(Has anyone ever doubted the abilities of our Northern Brothers?)
From D Bowman -
There were about 15 regular shooters.
The first round eliminated half the shooters and 4 or 5 rounds later and there were 2.
Long story shortened we went 12 more rounds till someone missed.
(Sounds like some pretty fair round ball shooters to me …)
It’s also been averaging 70 degrees in Phoenix Arizona
San Gabriel, California – 70 to 72 this weekend.
San Diego / Santa Margarita / Pendleton - 68 to 75
– Any shooters that far West willing to give it a go?
Oh my!!
Thank you Candle Snuffer for the ‘revival’ - http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=28771.0
Someday, I’ll learn to type more quickly … Yeah … Right
Cheers,
Smoketown
-
I agree, it's time to shoot and report our findings. With our 200 yard round ball match back, we have a platform to do some testing. I would encourage anyone with an interest in this topic to give the 200 yards a try. I plan on doing it again, and hopefully many times over.
I can appreciate Artificer's (Gus) interest in wanting to research and find answers to his questions. I applaud his efforts in doing so, and in doing so he has opened up (with help from many of us) new questions, possibilities, of what was or may have been. Granted, we will never be able to reproduce what the Riflemen of the ARW actually did, but we may be able to draw a bit more understanding of these Riflemen through actual range time.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
-
Dan,
We have been over what is written in “Colonial Riflemen of the American Revolution” by Joe Huddleston. You and I have disagreed on what the author tried so hard to get across to modern students in earlier threads and that’s why discussions are indeed valid. For those who don’t have a copy of this book, I typed out the following paragraph from page 12 in the Introduction section that is particularly germane to some of the discussions and examples in this thread. I quote:
“The apparent sentimentality of some writers in connection with the rifle leaves their reliability open to question. This is particularly true of some historians writing during the 1800’s. Many writers of the second quarter of the 19th century, in particular, rhapsodized so freely that there is little resemblance between their work and fact. Therefore every effort has been made to rely only on contemporary accounts or reliable secondary works of relatively recent origin, in order to avoid the bias. However, in some cases the only works available that cover smaller actions in sufficient detail were of this type and, therefore, have been used.”
As to modern military front sights. You are correct the M1903 front sight was extremely thin as was issued by Army Ordnance. However, BOTH the Army and Marine Corps were dissatisfied with that front sight in WWI, but it took the Marine Corps to come up with wider and taller front sights in 1919. The front sight width was increased to .100” to make it far easier to pick up the sights in battle and low light situations. M1 Garand and M14 issue front sights were thinner at around .075” and the NM front sight widths for both were .0592” and .0520”. (Folks may compare these front sight widths to modern front sight widths that many people use on reproduction muzzle loaders that are often around .080”. However, since the sight radius or distance from the rear of the front sight to the front of the rear sight are not always the same, there is going to be natural differences in how the front sights appear to the shooter. Longer distance between the sights make the same width front sight appear smaller to the shooter.)
The front sight of the M16A1 was a PITA to adjust; BUT though I don’t know about the Army, we Marines certainly adjusted them to a high degree when we shot our 200 yard through 500 yard qualification and requalification courses. I shot an M14 in Boot Camp for qualification in 1971, then an M16A1 for two years, then back to an M14 for a couple years, then the M16A1 and M16A2. I tied the All Time High Requalification Score of 249 out of a possible 250 at Quantico in 1988 with an M16A2 in literally perfect shooting conditions.
I truly don’t understand resistance against attempts to try to figure out HOW American Riflemen used their rifles in our time period. I concur that a .62 cal. rifle would have been very uncommon to downright rare, but even though the bore size is larger than what would have been common, the results are interesting for what may be the ultimate high end of possible long range accuracy in our time period. IOW, if it demonstrates what was the best accuracy possible during our period, then it gives us the “high end” to use in comparison to other rifles of the period. So if a shot could not reliably be made with a .62 cal. rifle at long range, then it clearly demonstrates it was hardly possible with a .45 to .52 caliber rifle.
A LOT has been learned in recent decades through experimental archeology done at such places as Colonial Williamsburg and Plimouth Plantation. The Volumes of the Journal of Historical Arms Making Technology are a particularly excellent and germane in our area of interest. Though of course they used period sources and original or replica tools, it took actual modern use of them to better understand how things were done. Though we have to be careful we understand and note the differences between then and now (as I have tried to point out so much on cloth thickness, ball sizes available, powders, lack of short starters, etc.) we can learn much from amateur experimental archeology when we bear in mind these and other things. Of course there is no way to “get in the heads of 18th century people 100 percent, but we can come closer than what may be imagined.
I also don’t understand your rather casual dismissal of the quality of powder available to the American Rifleman in 1776 compared to today. The quality of powder is extremely important to the accuracy of the Longrifle and anyone who has tried different powders over the years in their rifles can attest to that. Now while the best powder available to American Riflemen from Britain at first and then later from France directly or indirectly through the Dutch, local powder manufacture was often of far less quality. Here is a link to demonstrate:
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/the-gunpowder-shortage/
The British Army used rifles in the Seven Years war and the ARW. It seems THEY learned MORE about using rifles for the military than we did, from those conflicts. They developed the Baker rifle that was a much better military Flintlock Round Ball Rifle than our M 1803 rifle and arguably (if not certainly) our M1814 and M1817 rifles.
Gus
-
Smoketown,
I encourage actual shooting to test what may or may not have been possible in 1776, which is the topic of this thread.
However, to truly learn more about what was possible in 1776, then one must try to duplicate ALL the parameters of what was actually used in the period, to the best of our ability or we learn little or nothing. This is not an attempt to “ ‘de-tune’ the combination(s) to suit whatever fanciful approximation of ‘period correctness’ your heart desires.” Actually and in reality, how we shoot flintlock rifles today is often a fanciful approximation of how they did it in 1776, when we get down to brass tacks. That is not an attempt to be critical of anyone who shoots today as I am a strong proponent of all types of shooting and especially muzzle loading shooting, but it is fact nonetheless.
Using the guidelines of Experimental Archeology much better teach us about what was possible and even probable in 1776.
Gus
-
CS,
One thing that “hit me” today was the use of the white center in the black bullseye on your 200 yard targets that you, Daryl and Taylor used in approximation of the paper slips mentioned in original accounts they shot at.
I first found out how valuable it was to use a white center in a black bullseye in the 70’s from shooting at Clark Brothers’ Range near Warrenton, VA, though it didn’t really register at the time.
It wasn’t until the 80’s when I went back there to fix and sight in my Model 1100 for deer hunting, that it really dawned on me how valuable it was. I had to shoot and go into the gun shop to buy more parts because my brother had disassembled it while I was transferred and he had not put all the parts back in and messed up other parts. That caused me to keep buying more of their targets that had a 1” white circle in the black bullseye. So after I got my gun fixed and sighted in, I went back and bought even more of those targets to use at other times.
I am not an Eye Doctor, but the difference in the white center and the black bullseye background really aids the eyes in distinguishing the center of the target vs a completely black bullseye as it gives a much finer aiming point.
From then on for the rifles I built and shot at 100 yards to test them for accuracy, I bought targets with white centers in the black bullseye or put white “shot stickies” in the center of an all black bullseye for better shooting.
It never dawned on me until this thread that I was recreating what they did in the 18th century by putting a slip of what had to have been lighter colored paper on a background that was darker and thus made accurate shooting easier.
Gus
-
I don't have measurements of the target but i have helped move it a few times. It is about the size of an average mans upper body.
My rifle has a 44inch barrel 1-66 twist. The 2 inch wide early style butt plate helps with the recoil. I think i was more worn out from the intense heckling from the bystanders. Most who i call dear friends. but i wouldn't have it any other way.
Thanks for the added information. Again, truly impressive shooting!
Gus
-
One thing that “hit me” today was the use of the white center in the black bullseye on your 200 yard targets that you, Daryl and Taylor used in approximation of the paper slips mentioned in original accounts they shot at.
If I Remember right, Daryl suggested that, and it does make a difference. The target resembles a "Creedmoor" target of sorts, and of course it's not to scale. I might just work in a similar type targets for the 50 & 100 yard shooting in our 200 Yard Round Ball Match. Good project for today. :)
-
In looking for information on a 4th great grand father James Richards I found a web site where I was
able to read his pension application. In it he said he enlisted in 1775 for one year from Lancaster county
in Capt. Matthew Smith's Company , Thompson's Rifle Battalion/1st Pennsylvania Regiment. I found this
thread about rifle accuracy in the Revolution very interesting. Now I am ready to see some 200 yard targets
Richard Henderson
-
Gus
You have FAR more information/knowledge on military arms than I. But lots of 03's have narrow from sights. Got one two steps away.
So far as the powder used. I did not casually dismiss it but we really have no way to test this and we really don't know what Morgan's Riflemen were using at Saratoga for example, was it from France or England? Rifles required finer powder than muskets. Usually described as rifle powder (or best rifle powder) as a preference and "FF" (this from late 1750s IIRC). The powder we use today is generally wheel mill powder and these were not in widespread use anywhere SFAIK at the time of the revolution. But rifle powder was still likely milled longer than "Musket" since it was near the low end for this. Most powder was ground in a stamp mill. The American made powder of the time was not even granulated as we think of it today. Probably just pressed through screens as it was in Europe well into 18th c.
I suspect that this is the reason wiping is mentioned so often. But if the powder were too soft it would break down in transport of form being carried. Really I would have dig out a lot of stuff that has been sent to me over the years to get a better handle on this.
But I do not think that in a FL this is going to be a major accuracy factor once sorted out if its really "rifle" powder. I would think the size of the vent would be a problem too. I have often wondered about the various factors but I have only seen one original FL rifle with an unused/unaltered vent. It was a Connestoga Rifle Works (Leman) dated 1840 and the vent looked to be about 3/32 or maybe 7/64 as I recall, certainly not 1/8". Been a long time since I looked at it. It was a western trade rifle I am sure and was poor quality.
But then we have these troublesome letters and journal entries. Why would a guy lie in a letter to his wife or to himself is a journal? What would Hanger want to lie for. Though I admit he did write some strange things in the 19th c.
I also pointed out that many of the newspaper stories, here and in England, were obviously somewhat "enhanced", its obvious.
We know that all riflemen and rifles were not created equal. But apparently 150 yards was doable in the 1750s in America. Its way easy today.
As I have pointed out there are also targets from the 1830s. Sure the powder is better, but the barrels are virtually the same. Same technology, same material, and the rifle may well have dated to the 18th c being a FL.
If the rifle will shoot 2" at 60 yards it will be !@*%&@ dangerous to a man at 200. 2" is not all that great if the wind is steady or non existent.
As we read we find "2 ounce" rifles, wall rifles, able to strike a sheet of writing paper at 500 yards. This would be a 8 bore, the target? It might plus or minus 16" x 24" as a "sheet of writing paper". I would have to look this up but this is ball park since this was about the size that paper was made and apparently sold in. But since nobody gave the actual dimensions? Still if the powder would shoot this well at 500 from a wall rifle then it might very well shoot well enough at 200 or 300 from a smaller rifle to hit a man one in three shots. This was not a newspaper article either. So the powder thing may not be much of a factor.
More on powder. But being porous and soft is not nearly the problem in a RB rifle that it is in a BPCR shooting 3 caliber or longer bullets at 1000 yards.
Hmm. I think I have a pound of that crappy powder being made in the C&H blasting powder plant in Scotland in the late 60s into the 1970s. Maybe I could dig that up. Those with a first edition Lyman Blackpowder Handbook will see its a little more than 1/2 as powerful as GOI of the time and this was far from a true sporting powder as made in 1890.
For years, probably decades perhaps many decades, the American made powder was really nothing more than military fuse and booster powder sieved to the proper size and put in a can labeled "Sporting Powder". I once wrote an article that stated this and a certain person had his feathers significantly ruffled because it seems they had a lawsuit in progress over bad grenade fuses.
I remember that while in a far off land when grenades were recalled. The radio crackled to life one morning sometime in late 1970 IIRC and we were told not to use the baseball grenade since some of them would go off when the spoon came off, bad fuzes. A friend told me "I threw two of them last night". Don't remember the "M" number. But it was some years before I wrote the article but it could have been linked, or the powder maker goofed again.
Never saw another one that I recall used the m26 afterwards, before it was a mix of both.
Some of the blackpowder we used to get before Swiss was as much as 15-20% fines from bacteria eating the sulfur in the powder while it was in the can. Loose lids were very common at this time and this aggravated the bug problem. Every case of powder generally resulted in load development starting over again and good lots were double buys. Then there was the graphite coating which was not an issue in fuses and boosters but not so good for propellant powders. But most shooters today think its normal and some even think Swiss is graphite coated.
But since most of the company's real income was military the shooters were basically told the shut up and be glad they had the stuff. No competition in the market at the time. So not all the powder shot in the 20th c was all that great compared to the better powders of the late 19th c. How it compares to 18c powder? If we can come up with some we could compare it.
But nobody has any and I am not interested in making any.
Me? I never shot any good BP until Swiss was imported.
We still have the reports from the past.....
So would the rifleman shoot at the enemy from 200 yards? My question would be "why would they NOT"? if they were skilled and knew enough about loading their rifle. Wind is low? Why not probably have a better than 50-50 chance. A couple of years ago a rather skilled friend of mine killed an Antelope at over 200 with a 54.
So if someone wants to experiment drill a 3/32" vent in a barrel, or even have one cut on a wooden rifling guide, maybe even from iron. Put the thing in a machine rest and shoot it. Or shoot the rifle they have. Its not going to be solved here with a keyboard.
The barrel we rifled from a Rice blank at our Gunmakers Fair looked GREAT. Thanks to Dave Rase for bringing the machine and letting us finish cutting the barrel.
Someone mentioned Carlos Hathcock. According to Hand, his CO, the rifle he used most in VN was only a 2 minute of angle rifle. But it held its zero, the others would not, for this reason it was the more accurate in the field. This from an interview on the boob tube IIRC. Today it would not be considered worth using.
Way past bed time in Montana.
Dan
-
Prior to the ARW, riflemen probably only had one choice of FFg powder when they went to purchase it, IOW whatever the store keeper or trader had in stock. What we don’t know is how much powder the “average” rifleman would have purchased. No doubt they had to try each “new batch” of powder to see what if any change they had to make in the powder charge to get the most accurate load IF they were shooting much beyond 100 yards. Longhunters would no doubt have purchased larger quantities at one time as they would be gone for a full season before coming back to be able to buy more powder. They too would have tested each new batch of powder, but because they bought larger quantities, their powder charge would have been more certain over longer periods of time because they were using the same powder.
Because there was only one American Powder Mill in the 13 colonies prior to the ARW, and that one in Pennsylvania, most of the powder imported here came from England, though some French powder MAY have been available at times. No doubt that “fine” rifle powder of FFg granulation was imported and available to American Riflemen prior to the ARW and most likely made in the PA Powder Mill. However, after the beginning of the war, it was military grade powder I.E., 1Fg powder for muskets and artillery grade powder that were the most vital powder granulations to procure. What we don’t know is if ANY FFg rifle powder was available for the Riflemen in “regular inventory” from the Quartermasters. Now, it is possible to downright probable the Rifleman ground the 1Fg Musket powder finer by using mortars and pestles. However, that is not going to be as accurate as powder that was “screened” to get the correct granulation size. Also, because the powder sources WERE so iffy to the Army for the first few years of the war, the powder came from different sources and all these things meant it would have been difficult to get the best accuracy out of the rifle time after time even in one campaign or year, let alone for a number of years. Bottom line on powder during the war is until France really started sending powder to the American Army in quantity, the quantity and quality of powder would have been a constant problem for Rifle Accuracy in the ARW.
I don’t believe Colonel Hanger was lying about what he personally saw and that 400 yard shot under perfect conditions was a MISS. The information he related about what other Riflemen could do about only the BEST marksmen being able to hit the head of an enemy soldier at 200 yards reliably, was not something he personally witnessed but rather what had been reported to him. No doubt that is WHY he mentioned it was reported to him as he never witnessed it. While I MAY believe there were some truly exceptional American Riflemen who could have hit an enemy’s head at 200 yards, the chances of them doing so under the psychological and emotional stress of combat is something all together different.
How much can we take from target shooting today with round ball flintlock target rifle when we are NOT rushed to shoot and have nothing of the psychological and emotional stress of combat? We can not duplicate that. So ALL we can get from target shooting today is what our rifles with consistent/best powder, patch and ball sizes our rifles prefer – is what our rifles are CAPABLE of shooting on a low stress or no stress rifle range. This is no doubt in part, or perhaps in great measure, why American Riflemen were generally ordered not to fire beyond 150 yards because that was the maximum range they could reliably hit a British Soldier and that probably was a shot in the torso.
Two more things we have not touched on for combat rifle accuracy is how much/little sleep the Riflemen got in the ARW AND how well or not they were fed. One just doesn’t get as much sleep in a combat zone as one does in civilian life AND the sleep they often get is not restful sleep. Not good for accurate shooting. Not enough food and/or not enough of the kind of food to best balance the diet also will make shooting in a combat zone more difficult. It was only in RARE times the American Armies were well fed during the ARW. Again, not good for accurate shooting. These are also not things we that will show up in TARGET shooting and more reasons why American Riflemen were ordered not to shoot beyond 150 yards.
A large part of the reason Carlos Hathcock did so well in combat shooting was he had fired his rifle with a clean/dry bore many, many times at many ranges and in many conditions and wrote all that information down to refer to later. Bottom line, he KNEW where his rifle would shoot the FIRST shot over all sorts of ranges and conditions. He recorded that information with an almost religious zealotry. I know because that’s how he taught me when I was a young Sergeant to zero in my rifle. Another thing he knew when to get sleep. In 1975 during the Ohio State Championships, held at Camp Perry Ohio and was always used by The Big Service Teams as practice for the National Championships later on that year, he was assigned in the same “hooch” as we Armorers. Instead of going out on liberty, he hit the rack (went to bed) at 8:00 PM to get plenty of sleep prior to practice and the matches. I was surprised at how little the shooters went out and “partied” as I had heard PLENTY of stories of them doing that in earlier years. However, the “ 10 X” target had just come into use and you could not be “sloppy” and shoot a “possible score” on it like they used to be able to do on the 5V targets.
Well, that’s enough for tonight.
Gus
-
When I started this thread , I had no doubts that some riflemen were capable.
But another question I though of , which hasn't been addressed is the condition of their rifles ?
I was hoping that someone would volunteer to leave their prized tack driver
outside for 365 days a year in high humidity , mud , rain , snow and jarring 100+ mile marches.
Sure you can wipe it down once a day , swab the barrel with whatever materials were then available
and even cover the lock with a calfs knee or something .
If you think it got pampered every evening after an all day forced march your kidding yourself.
Any takers ? :) D
-
Well, except for the rifling, the flintlock rifle is no different then the flintlock musket, and I'm pretty sure the Continental Army spent most their time outdoors and they were still able to bring their muskets to battery against the enemy. A well built firearm of the day probably was pampered more than one might think. I expect the Riflemen pampered theirs just a bit more without being told to do so, like the Continental Army probably was, constantly.
Firearms were viewed much different then, than today. It was everything to you that meant all aspects of survival and I expect there was quite a few pampered flintlocks by those who made their living off the land. Could be a completely different story with the city dwellers and firearms back then? :)
-
We live in what some call a disposable society, if it breakes there are those who would just buy another. Quite different from our forfathers or even our great grandparents who for the most part took better care of their belongings.
-
" What would Hanger want to lie for. Though I admit he did write some strange things in the 19th c."
He might not exactly lie, but I have been wondering lately if he might be exaggerating his expertise a bit. He was not a modest man, after all - he doesn't seem to have been reluctant to brag about his marksmanship and he was evidently fond of dropping names, judging by his writings. He also doesn't seem to have been reluctant to give an opinion on a wide variety of things that he seems unlikely to have known much about. It seems possible that his claim to examined "hundreds and hundreds" of rifles might be a bit of a fib - seen hundreds of rifles, quite possibly. Carefully examined hundreds and hundreds? Maybe not.
He may have been telling the unvarnished truth, of course, but I think that it would be wise not to just assume so.
One rifle he did examine is RCA 121, since he brought it back from SC himself before giving it to Prince George. Interestingly enough, while the caliber matches Hanger's description, the barrel is a little under five inches longer than the 3 feet 3 inches that Hanger gives as typical - I have been wondering if maybe he was describing a particular rifle, but if so it wasn't this one.
BTW, did anyone else notice that Hanger says that American riflemen used only a thimbleful of powder for hunting, but upped the load considerably for warfare?
-
Chapter XIII (13) of “Cuthbertson's System for the Complete Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battalion of Infantry” goes into GREAT detail on how British Soldiers were expected to keep their muskets not only clean, but highly polished at all times. Though they may not have been that perfect on campaign, I’m sure they were required to keep their muskets in really good condition at all times. Even if they only did such a complete job in Garrison, it would have warmed the heart of the strictest modern day Marine Drill Instructor. Grin.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1SxEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
The American Army having their roots in the British Army and some Officers actually having served there, would have tried to emulate that. I don’t think they would have been as successful as the British, as American supplies were no where near as certain. Still, I’m sure they did the best they could.
There is written evidence that Longhunters deliberately rubbed certain plants on the brass parts of the rifles so the brass would tarnish and thus not shine and give away their position to game or hostile NA’s. Not sure and I don’t think that was a common practice outside hunters, though.
Anyone who has ever slept on the Primitive Range at Friendship, In, KNOWS that your rifle will rust like all get out overnight if you don’t wipe it down every day and that is even when the day was sunny with no rain or snow. And that’s a rifle that has a browned or blued barrel and lock. For those of us who have reenacted with “bright” barrels and locks on our muskets; you HAVE to wipe them down every day or they will be a rust bucket by the morning and that’s true even when you haven’t fired the flinter that day. When we used to do a mock battle in front of the National Archives in Washington, DC on July 4th, it was often so hot that the flesh of our fingers was BURNT onto the barrels of our “King’s Arms” or Brown Bess Replica’s. MAN is that difficult to get off a musket barrel. Grin.
We tend to forget just how much a flintlock rifle or smoothbore cost in our period. Depending on how much a man made, it was anywhere from three months to close to a year’s wages, especially for a rifle. That alone would cause them to take good care of it and as others noted. When a firearm means not only your livelihood, but your LIFE in many instances, those who survived were the ones who took good care of their firearms.
Gus
-
Elnathan,
Good points on Hanger. Since he campaigned in the South, it was possible he saw hundreds of rifles in Tory as well as Patriot hands, since the rifle was much more common from Pennsylvania down through the Carolina’s and even Georgia. Had he campaigned primarily in New England, that would not have been the case.
As to your question, “BTW, did anyone else notice that Hanger says that American riflemen used only a thimbleful of powder for hunting, but upped the load considerably for warfare?”
Yes, I did notice that, but it is not unexpected. As I'm sure you know, today many of us have two loads we use in our rifles. One is an “accuracy load” and one is a “hunting load” for deer sized or large game. My accuracy load in a .45 cal. straight sided (not swamped) flint rifle is 42 ½ grains while my hunting load is 80 grains. That rifle is extremely picky about that ½ grain and if one goes ½ grain more of less, accuracy drops off noticeably. This would be an appropriate load for anything from squirrels to rabbits, possums, raccoons, etc. If one looks at the original accounts during the period, it seems they used 90 grains or more in rifles up to I think it was 90 to 110 grains for the Baker Rifle (though of course that was a 62. caliber rifle)? Now MAYBE some of that is the fact their powder was not quite as uniform/potent as ours is today? But, it still shows they realized that there was a “small game” or “target load” and a heavier load used for hunting deer, bear, boar, wolves, cougars, or men.
In the 1810 original account you posted earlier in the thread, pouring powder over a ball might have been an “accuracy” or “small game” load.
Also, thimbles that Hanger would have known about were usually larger than thimbles we think of today used by women. In Hanger’s world, tailors were men and that meant their thimbles for fingers and thumbs were larger. So a thimble of powder to Hanger would have been more than what we might think about today.
Gus
-
But remember, people were smaller then, than now, so the difference may not be as big as one would think. Mark
-
Hanger actually specifies a woman's thimble, Artificer. I am pretty sure that you are right, though, that 18th century thimbles were larger than modern ones. Either that or Hanger was speaking loosely. I don't think a modern one would hold more than 15 or twenty grains, and I doubt that American riflemen habitually loaded twenty grains of powder behind a .50 caliber ball! :o ;D
Leaving aside the question of exactly how much powder went into a woman's thimble, I have long held a theory that the American longrifle was never intended as a long range weapon but was designed for very precise shot placement at moderate ranges (a hundred yards or less), and that as a normal thing folks didn't shoot much over that range. Hanger's suggestion that under normal circumstances they used a fairly small charge lends weight to that theory. Ergo, while the really long shots under discussion capture our attention (and imagination) today, it seems likely that such shots were out of the riflemen's normal routine and they possibly were not as proficient at estimating range, etc., at longer ranges as we might assume.
Not exactly an earth-shattering theory, and something that has been discussed on this thread already, I believe.
OTOH, now I am curious to know how much powder an 18th century woman's thimble would hold...
-
I have long held a theory that the American longrifle was never intended as a long range weapon but was designed for very precise shot placement at moderate ranges (a hundred yards or less), and that as a normal thing folks didn't shoot much over that range.
I would agree with this simply because of the "over the log" shooting match which we know to have been (at least the one recorded and attended by Davy Crockett in 1831) - 40 yards offhand, or 60 yards with a rest (over the log). This does tend to lend support to the above quote.
see;
http://www.muzzleblasts.com/archives/vol3no2/articles/mbo32-1.shtml
-
Elnathan,
Good info on the thimble that Hanger mentioned was a woman’s thimble. Sorry I missed that. Not sure how much powder a woman’s thumb thimble would have held in the period and I agree Hanger was most likely talking loosely. My Grandmother’s thumb thimble probably would have held 25 grains of blackpowder, but she was a TINY woman at only about 4’ 10 ½” even though I remember her “facing down” some unruly and MUCH larger men by her will alone. Grin. My Grandmother would have been tiny in the 18th century, though.
For others: It came as a surprise to me that Americans in the 18th century were ALMOST as tall as we are today, the first time I researched it. American Males on average were only an inch or at most an inch and a half shorter than today and American Females were only about an inch shorter than today. This because the average American in the time period ate far, FAR better than Europeans. In the 19th century, the average size of males and females SHRUNK due to all the poor immigrants from Europe who came over after the potato famine and other famines in especially Eastern Europe. Since so many of those poor recent immigrants signed up for the Civil War, the average American soldier in the Civil War was much shorter/smaller than in the ARW. So the average American Soldier during the 18th century would not have been very noticeably smaller than today, though the British Soldier coming from poor areas was smaller on average then.
That’s also why 18th century British Soldiers were on average 2 to 2 ½ shorter than American Soldiers with the exception of British Soldiers assigned to the single Grenadier Company in each Regiment. Those soldiers tended to be from 5’10” to 6 feet tall and rarely were sometimes taller than that. Grenadiers were “Heavy Infantry/Shock Troops” and when they were sent in, they were VERY imposing and things got real nasty.
Gus
-
I have long held a theory that the American longrifle was never intended as a long range weapon but was designed for very precise shot placement at moderate ranges (a hundred yards or less), and that as a normal thing folks didn't shoot much over that range.
I would agree with this simply because of the "over the log" shooting match which we know to have been (at least the one recorded and attended by Davy Crockett in 1831) - 40 yards offhand, or 60 yards with a rest (over the log). This does tend to lend support to the above quote.
see;
http://www.muzzleblasts.com/archives/vol3no2/articles/mbo32-1.shtml
I had a chance to visit with a long time member of the U.S. International Muzzleloading Team a couple of weekends ago and he had what I thought might be some interesting observations on this discussion.
He also mentioned that Flintlock Longrifle Matches were not held past 100 yards in the 18th century and even that distance was rare with shorter distances being common. He also mentioned a common target was a slab of wood that was charred/blackened on one side and a square with an "X" crossing the corners on it was carved on the charred side with a knife. It was a "one shot" match and whoever hit closest to the center of the X won the match. I had never heard of that before and I thought others might find that interesting.
He also mentioned that he remembered one 18th century hunting pouch that had a pistol length ramrod inside the pouch. Though it may have only been used to load the pouch owner's pistol, there has been some speculation it was used as a short starter for the pouch owner's rifle as well. If it was used that way, I imagine the owner used his knife handle to push the pistol length rod and patched ball down the bore. He is going to research this more and get back with me the next time I see him at a gun show
Gus.
-
A few years ago Brian Speciale, Host of the Impossible Shots Program, asked me to make a long distance shot with my flintlock rifle. He wanted a three hundred yard shot. Prior to this I had shot a gallon milk jug at two hundred yards. That shot was fairly easy. I had also shot a pint bottle at one hundred yards. All shots were taken offhand.
In my opinion the difference in difficulty between a two hundred and three hundred yard shot is huge. For the 300 yd. shot we placed a balloon about the size of a man's head on a four foot stake. My first shot hit the stake four inches from the bottom, after that shot, it all went downhill. We were shooting into a dark background and could not see where the ball was impacting. My point of aim was well above the target I would guess somewhere between five and ten feet. It may have been easier if I had a well lit background and a good point of aim, but I didn't.
I tried multiple times with my .58 cal rifle then I switched to my .45 cal rifle. I hit it on the fourth or fifth shot with the .45. It took me a total of an hour and a half to make the shot.
I would argue based on my experience that routine 300 yard shots were not the norm during the 18th century and then, as now it was more luck than skill.
Skilled riflemen were few and far between until well into the war and then they fought mostly in the Southern Theatre. Most soldiers were equipped with smoothbore muskets and not rifles. There were very few recorded rifles in New England prior to the Rev War. They did not start appearing here until after the revolution.
These rifles are not conical bullet guns they are round ball guns that being said they have serious limitations, when it comes to shooting long distances. They are not designed for 300 yard shooting. That's not to say that you can't lock one into a good rest and get some semblance of a group but your not going to do it offhand.
You can argue about powder, ball weight, wind, bullet drop, etc.,etc.,etc. but like Dan stated, stop typing and go try it. It AINT easy.
That's my two cents ;D
Centershot
-
Centershot,
Thanks for chiming in and relating your experience.
I was wondering if you might answer some questions about the shooting you mentioned to give us a clearer picture?
1. You mentioned that the background of the target was dark. Was this because it was close to dusk or nightfall or was it due to forest or trees behind it or something else like a cloudy day? I also wonder if the balloon was of a color that stood out enough for you to see it clearly and I suppose it did? I’m sure not being able to identify where a missed shot struck was amplified during an actual battle and not just target shooting.
2. This one REALLY interests me. Are the sights low like on original rifles or are they higher off the barrel like many of us use today? Along with that, did you try to align the bottom of the front sight with the top of your rear sight? This last question goes to the theory that has been suggested on this thread that perhaps they could align the bottom of the front sight or even the barrel under the front sight, with the rear sight for accurate long range shots. I could see how they could sight in at the bottom of the front sight for longer range, but I’m not sure how valuable that would be for 300 yard shots.
3. What was your aiming point and how did you align the sights when you shot the gallon size milk jugs at 200 yards? OH, and at what range is that rifle or rifles sighted in at normally?
I really appreciate the information you gave and would greatly appreciate the answers to these questions.
Gus
-
The problem with larger cal. round ball rifles, as far as longer distance shots are concerned, is.....most don't load enough powder to get the velocities up to what you can more readily attain with a .45 or even a .50 My friends and I used to shoot at 200 yds on a regular basis . Most were shooting .54 cal rifles and 80 to 100 gr of powder. We had aperture sights and could just dial in the setting and let loose. Wind and even temp made a big difference in adjustments, but once you got to know your rifle, hits on a MNLRA 200 yd target were more common than not. One of the best shooting displays was by a fellow who had a .45 cal under hammer percussion. He was loading the same charges as the rest of us.
My back 40 range behind the house was 300 yds, and I had a steel ram hung on chains there. It is about 28 in from nose to tail and 14 in the body not counting the legs. I got to where I could ring that steel on a routine basis with my .50 cal and 110 gr FFg not by aiming at a point above the target, but rather by imagining a mark or sight picture which put the from sight above the rear, and letting my eye centre it. It is like using a smoothbore , but the rear sight gives a point of reference which makes the sight picture more repeatable . You are in fact imagining a taller rear sight [ Hope I'm explaining this properly] Once you have that sight picture in mind, you are in business ! I don't mind aiming at the top edge of a target, but I hate trying to aim off the target . This method works much better for me.
-
Hi Gus, my sights are typical of the sights you see on most contemporary flintlock rifles. I have an ivory inlay in the front sight and the top rear of the front sight is beveled, thereby creating a bead.
It was a bright sunny day, the background was dark due to trees, typical Maine woods, mixed conifers and hardwood. If you ever watch any of my videos you can see what the background looks like. I have been doing these shots in the same area since we started five or six years ago. I believe the balloon was white???
I always use Kentucky windage. I've never had much luck moving the alignment of the front and rear sights. I would be surprised if I had enough front sight for a 300 yard shot.
For the 200 yard milk jug I held slightly above it and I may??? have got it on the first shot. I don't remember. If I did it was luck.
I think with adjustable peep or ladder sights on the rear and a globe bubble front sight you could do better. I have a Motto heavy barreled rifle with a 20 power Lyman scope on it and I could probably do better with it. But that's not what we're talking about. We could argue all day about the modern improvements we could make on these rifles to get more accuracy out of them. That's not what they had.
We are takling about shooting good size targets offhand at ranges beyond what these guns were designed for, typically these targets were moving. If you've ever heard a bullet snap as it passes your head, you don't look to see where it came from.
If you put enough lead down range you're going to hit something. How many times have you been plinking and someone say see if you can hit that impossible target out there, and you wing one at it and you hit it. I think it's a mixture of skill and luck, an educated guess.
As a side note, years ago I had an original Rev War powder horn about half full of powder. The stuff looked like minature popcorn. I lit some off and it ignighted well but I don't think I would use it in my rifles today. It's possible that it was cannon powder. I'll never know.
Centershot
-
Hi Centershot,
Thanks for your reply.
OK, the dark background of your shot was the Maine woods and since I’ve been there, I know what you mean about it being difficult to pick up the target. I suspect that a British Enlisted Man’s “Madder” Red Regimental Coat or a British Officer’s Scarlet Red Regimental Coat with what would look like a thin white line running down the center, due to the Weskit (period vest) worn underneath the “turned back” facings of the Regimental Coat, MAY be something that would stand out more to use as a target on a day with good light? Still at 300 yards, it is not easy to distinguish color nearly as much as it is when closer than 100 yards. Many times I’ve taken young Marines into the Virginia woods to show them their older pattern woodland camouflage pattern utility uniform (the Army calls them BDU’s) will no longer show as camouflage when the person is about 100 yards away and only looks like a dark outline of a man.
Your experience seems to confirm that one can not use the bottom of a front sight and align it with the rear sight for 300 yard shooting. This is what I expected because of the drop of a round ball between 200 and 300 yards, but theory only goes so far and your experience seems to prove it.
I very much agree that an offhand shot at 200 yards would be extremely difficult to hit when the target is moving and that’s even when the target is just walking. Even when in the best prone position at 200 yards, that is not an easy shot on a walking target with period Sights.
My extremely limited combat experience was such that we always saw the enemy or their muzzle flashes. However, our Scout Snipers taught me that when a bullet is fired at you and you THINK it was behind you – it is not. It actually means you don’t hear the “crack” or sonic boom till AFTER the bullet passes you and that can lead you to think the people shooting at you are behind you. So Snipers are taught to “put the boom behind you” or face the opposite direction of the sound of the bullet passing you, to understand where the enemy is.
I wonder if the original powder you found in the original powder horn you mentioned had swelled due to the powder not being coated and thus allowing humidity/moisture to swell the grains? Of course, you are correct it might well have been cannon priming powder and that’s why it was never used for hunting and still in the horn when you got it.
Thanks again for your reply,
Gus
-
My back 40 range behind the house was 300 yds, and I had a steel ram hung on chains there. It is about 28 in from nose to tail and 14 in the body not counting the legs. I got to where I could ring that steel on a routine basis with my .50 cal and 110 gr FFg not by aiming at a point above the target, but rather by imagining a mark or sight picture which put the from sight above the rear, and letting my eye centre it. It is like using a smoothbore , but the rear sight gives a point of reference which makes the sight picture more repeatable . You are in fact imagining a taller rear sight [ Hope I'm explaining this properly] Once you have that sight picture in mind, you are in business ! I don't mind aiming at the top edge of a target, but I hate trying to aim off the target . This method works much better for me.
Bob,
In the 70's, I shot a lot of Northwest Trade Gun Matches with my Brown Bess "Carbine" that did not have a rear sight. However, I am a bit of a loss to understand what you are describing here. Perhaps I am a bit "thick" on this one. Grin.
Gus
-
The front sight is on target. Rear sight is your eye....imagine the existence of a rear ladder/elevated sight. The existing rear sight helps with consistency . I hope that is a better explanation. I find this more workable than taking the front sight off the target. I think that Elmer Keith used a similar variation in shooting his pistol at long range.
-
The front sight is on target. Rear sight is your eye....imagine the existence of a rear ladder/elevated sight. The existing rear sight helps with consistency . I hope that is a better explanation. I find this more workable than taking the front sight off the target. I think that Elmer Keith used a similar variation in shooting his pistol at long range.
OK, I think I just got it. What it sounds like what you are doing is raising your eye level and perhaps raising your cheek higher on or even off the stock a bit. By raising your eye level, the muzzle is higher even when still using the front sight to aim and that will cause the ball to strike higher. Never thought about trying that. Thanks for the explanation.
Gus
-
Exactly ! Estimating an inch or so above the top of the rear sight is easier than estimating a 10 ft hold over the target.
With the front sight on the target, repeatable hits are more easily achieved. This has worked for me out at my 300 yd steel target.
-
Bob,
That is an interesting technique, indeed.
Since I've always had a bad astigmatism, I have to crowd as close to the rear sight as possible to shoot my best. I also learned the value of a solid "spot weld" or cheek position in the Corps to be as close to exactly the same on every shot for accurate shooting. I could see changing one's cheek position higher on the stock and still being able to maintain a fairly uniform cheek position which aids accuracy immensely. Thanks for sharing that!
Gus
-
"Holding front sight" is the normal method of long range pistol and revolver shooting as described by Elmer Keith. Using that method enabled me to shoot reasonably well to 325 yards with my 4" M29 - Elmer was a great instructor for that type of shooting. Taylor and I found early, in the 70's, that that method also worked with our round ball rifles. We still use it today for the 100 yard targets on our trail and other's trails. Our front sights have about an 1/8" 45 degree slant of the rear edge. On the bush trail it shows as a little shiny spot - bead like and if held over the rear sight's flat (top of it's edge in the middle of the plate, it gives most every rifle I have, a change from a 50 yard zero to a 100 yard zero. Try it, you might like it.
Holding high does not work as well as holding middle with a 'proud' sight.
If your rear notch is deep and you've sight your rifle for a 1/2 hold or 'fine' sight, then holding level with the top edge will add about 50 yards to your poi. Right or wrong, this is the way W.W. Greener explained the "Kentucky" rifle sighting in the 9th edition of "The Gun etc".
With low rear and barely corn front sights, the front sight would fill the rear's notch. Thus the 'corn' was help 'proud' (above) the rear sight's top surface for longer range shooting.
Bob is describing holding the front sight higher and higher for longer and longer range shooting. This brings the cheek higher and higher on the comb, just as an elevated rear sight makes you do this very thing. This form of holding has come up on this site a number of times and each time we attempt to explain at as best as possible.
-
While I agree that the holding on a spot on the front sight works and is useful with modern sights. I have used it. The bottom of the insert on S&W revolver is useful for example.
If we figure the Schreit rifle has a 1/8" tall sight (this rifle has a nice photo of the front sight from the muzzle in RCA 1 so its a reference, some sights are lower) and a flat top rear. Holding the base of the front sight at the top of the rear would give 14" of elevation at 100 yards with a 32" sight radius. This translates to the ball crossing the line of sight again at about 190 yards +- with a 495 RB at 1800 fps and a .070 BC. According to Hornady's ballistics calculator.
So this would be useful at 200 yards with a 105-110 yard (106 yards is 20 rods) zero at 200 one could hold on the mans hat with a normal sight picture and have a good aiming point and a strike somewhere in the torso, top of my head to 27" low would be a good hit if the enemy has a tall hat? Chest hit. 100 yard zero would still be over my belt buckle. IF the rev-war rifle is making 1800 fps and IF its not sighted to a longer distance, which is possible, but more likely with rifles used in the west in the 19th c. We don't know anything about velocity or zero distances. So if Murphy, for example, were shooting at Frasier at 300 yards he will need an aiming point someplace above Frasier unless he has marks down along the barrel someplace since with 100 or 110 yard zero the ball will be about 110" low.
With a 60 yard zero the ball is 121" low at 300. This is about three 1/8" tall front sight heights if holding down on the barrel for elevation.
Dan
-
Daryl, that technique must be a " Canadian" thing ! ;D I'm surprised to hear so few have used it.
-
As I mentioned earlier, a RB shot aimed at an enemy's hat at 200 yards should drop the ball into the torso of the enemy. I wouldn't care if it was a hit below the neck to the groin, as any solid hit in the torso will take an enemy out of action with a .45 - .52. cal. round ball. That size RB normally just makes too big of a hole and lets out too much blood or air. Even if it hits above the lungs, it is going to take out the use of a shoulder and the enemy can't shoot at you with a long gun with only one hand, unless at extremely close range.
My apology for getting a little morbidly graphic, but this thread is about using Longrifles in a War.
Gus
-
I gotcha Bob, but Elmer, for much of his life and writing career was from Salmon Idaho- as least that's where I called him, and from where his correspondence to me was mailed.
Taylor's first 62 Hawken, had a bright wear spot on the barrel, just over 1/2 way down from leaning on the wooden bench while loading it at the Squamish Rod and Gun Club. When you held the rifle up to the shoulder, it appeared to be a thin white line.
He found that if he held that thin white line level with the top of his rear sight, and put the bead on the 325 yard target, he could hit that target just about every time - with round ball and I think he was using about 160gr. to 180gr. 2F at that time about the mid 1970's.
-
Dan, dont want to nit-pic but I thought 20 rods was 110 yards. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that a rod is 16&1/2 feet, can anyone verify that or maybe no one cares anyway since I'm nitpicking.
-
Dan, dont want to nit-pic but I thought 20 rods was 110 yards. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that a rod is 16&1/2 feet, can anyone verify that or maybe no one cares anyway since I'm nitpicking.
You are correct.
-
Too many questions, and not much shooting looking for answers, so back in October 2013 I borrowed a rifle and did some shooting, finishing up on 26 January 2014. Technical details will follow in the next post.
First off, the rifle was a rather plain original Dickert (it reminds me of Kindig's #19). It was re-converted and restored by an overly-enthusiastic "gunsmith" in 1976. I had permission to shoot it, as long as I made no permanent changes other than to modify the touchhole liner and drill out the touch hole as needed to allow firing. The bore would not pass a .490" round ball.
I used two lots of powder, that I'd had on hand for 20+ years but never fired in a rifle, so they were unknown quantities. I settled on balls cast in an original mould marked only "44." The lead was scrounged from the backstop at a local range. I made a trip to the local purveyor of assorted fabrics (i.e., Goodwill) and purchased some linen (old table runner) of what I thought was probably an appropriate thickness, based on how it felt "in hand." Lube was neatsfoot oil, mostly because I frequently use that as a lube.
Initial load testing was done from a supported offhand position (I rested my left forearm on a fencepost). Beginning with the first lot of powder, I shot ten-shot groups at 50 yards, increasing the powder change 10 grains each time. Balls were placed on a strip of lubed patching, seated flush with the muzzle using the handle of my knife, then the patch was cut and the ball seated home using a loading rod I had on hand rather than the rod that accompanied the rifle. (This is pretty much my usual loading procedure.) Limited testing was done with pre-cut square patches and pre-cut round patches, but no difference in group size or POI was noted.
After watching groups shrink in size then begin opening up as the charge was increased, I returned to the charge that gave the smallest group and made a fixed charger. I then shot that load at 100 yards, where I found that when using a center hold on a 6" paper plate, about 8 of 10 shots would hit the lower half of the plate (the other two were usually right below the lower edge of the plate). Group sizes were typically about 6-7". Using a second lot of powder, I worked up a load that hit to the same point of impact at 100 yards, and again made a fixed charger for that load. (Group sizes with the second load were about the same as the first, but I didn't shoot enough groups to really be able to say for certain if one was better than the other. The charges were certainly different.)
From there I began testing. Ranges were 200 yards (supported offhand), 200 yards (prone), 300 yards prone, and 400 yards prone. The targets used were copies of the IPSC silhouette, measuring 30" tall (including the "head"), 18" wide, with a "head" measuring about 6" square. I put a white watch cap on the head to provide an aiming point similar to a powdered wig (and because I never liked that hat anyhow). A shot was fired, then the barrel cleaned with tow on a worm, the bore dried, and the barrel allowed to cool before reloading and taking another shot. On each day I shot, five shots were fired at each range, repeating a total of four days (total of 20 shots at each range). The series was then repeated with the second load.
In scoring the targets, I counted any hit on the silhouette as a "hit."
Load #1 results:
200 yard supported offhand: 15 hits
200 yard prone: 16 hits
300 yard prone: 11 hits
400 yard prone: 3 hits
Load #2 results:
200 yard supported offhand: 16 hits
200 yard prone: 19 hits
300 yard prone: 9 hits
400 yard prone: 1 hits
I only hit that dang hat twice.
Conclusions:
After the tests, I spent a couple of afternoons shooting at targets a friend had placed at random distances from my shooting position, and from known distances at targets placed in front of an old (soon to be torn down) barn so I could see the POI of misses in the same plane as the target. It was clear that out to 300 yards, the biggest obstacle to achieving hits was not range estimation but reading the wind. Practice had made me familiar with how the target would look in relation to my front sight at various ranges; at unknown ranges (if I read the wind correctly) I averaged about a 60% hit ratio to 200 yards, and about 25% from 200-300 yards. When shooting at the target in front of the old barn, I could see my shots strung out by the wind, often several feet or more, even at 200 yards.
While I am certain reading the wind was of even greater importance at 400 yards, I suspect the shooter/rifle/load combination was a more-significant barrier. I was having to hold over too much for my eyes to be consistent.
-
Technical details
As stated, the rifle had previously been reconverted and "restored." The restoration consisted largely of gluing various splits and breaks, and replacing some wood, then touching up the finish. Unfortunately, the replacement wood was stained with chromium trioxide, and now has a greenish hue. Equally bad, the "glue" used seems to have been some epoxy or fiberglass (possibly Accraglass).
At some point in the history of the rifle, it was converted to percussion. Possibly at this time, the barrel was shortened at the muzzle-the tip of the front sight is now flush with the muzzle. Judging by the barrel tenons and pins, the barrel was never shortened at the breech. I did shim the barrel at the tang and pins to elminate the play due to dried-out wood. (I was a bit concerned about excess wear to the stock in these areas.)
Before shooting the rifle, I pulled the breechplug. As the plug didn't quite seal the breech threads, I added a copper washer to the face of the plug. When re-converted, the drum had been removed and a touch hole liner of sorts installed (possibly made from the old drum). The touch hole had been drilled but filled with glue. I dressed the liner flush with the inside of the barrel, and removed the glue from the touch hole. The back inch of the bore showed extensive erosion, with the remainder of the bore lightly "frosted" as might be seen in a cartridge rifle fired with corrosive primers. I slugged the bore and found it to mic out at a hair over .484".
The size of the touch hole hole was a concern for me, it would almost accept a 7/64" drill bit. I decided to try it before taking action. Other than allowing occasional granules of powder to fall through, it posed no problems. I did plug the hole with a feather before loading (but I probably would have anyhow, as this is a normal part of my loading routine).
The front sight measured .119" in height, and .021" at the thickest. The rear sight was approximately 9" from the breech, and had a notch that looked like a knife-nick.
The lock had been re-converted, but the hammer angle was not correct and the frizzen was not hardened. These parts were removed for the shooting test, with correctly-functioning replacements installed. To my mind, the frizzen spring seemed rather weak but I did not replace it.
The mould (marked "44") cast a ball averaging .469" (depending on where you measured it--not perfectly round), weighing (in my range-lead alloy) an average of 156 grains. The balls were cast, then sprues were trimmed flush with a jackknife. Patching was a piece of linen mic'ing .014" after absorbing neatsfoot oil overnight.
For the main tests, two lots of powder were used. Load #1 used Elephant FFg purchased in (I think) 1992. No lot number is present on the cans. The second load used Goex FFg, lot #30FE09B 03-86. Elephant was used for load development; the load that was selected gave a average velocity of 1860 fps. For these tests, the rifle was primed from the horn, using the Elephant FFg (the Goex seemed slower to ignite in the pan).
The main tests were fired in a recently-harvested soybean field. This is reasonably level ground, with a slight roll causing changes in elevation of about 5-6'. All shots were fired with the shooter and target at "high points" on the ground; it was as close to level as I could get. There was nothing behind that targets that rose above the level of the targets to use for an offset aiming point. All range estimation and elevation was done "by eye" using the relative height of the front sight.
On various days, the temperatures ranged from about 20-80 degrees F. Winds were the norm, but I tried to limit shooting to calmer days. Humidity ranged from 50-80%.
The main difficulty I had with the rifle was with the sights. The rear sight was too close to my eye for clear vision, and the front was a silver blade. I hate silver sights in open country, so I smoked it every shot or two. Trigger pull was about 4#--lighter would have been nice, but it wasn't bad. No other real problems were noted with the rifle. I suspect the size of the touchhole may have cost me some velocity.
Questions or comments?
-
Good report Habu. With your testing this has given us some insight. Your hit ratio with both loads are equal to hits -vs- shots taken 45 of 80. One could say that at '300 yards' it's a 50/50 proposition / chance of hitting one's target. I consider that pretty good.
400 yards in my opinion is a chance shot. I don't think anyone could (with any certainty) do much better with a patched round ball.
200 yards? I think those were good results; 31 out of 40 and 35 out of 40.
Can hardly wait for decent weather to have at this.
Thanks for laying some ground work. :)
-
Habu,
First, Thank You for such a determined effort and for the way you diligently tried to emulate what a period Rifleman would have done. I also very much appreciate the way you recorded the manner in which you did these things. Oh, your 200 yard supported Offhand shooting at 200 yards produced some very impressive results!! GOOD shooting!!
Yes, I do have some questions now and probably more later on.
1. Do you think the bore condition caused the rifle to be less accurate than it would have been when newer? It sounds like the corrosion may have caused ball/patch seating at the chamber to be less uniform and possibly influencing accuracy than when the barrel was newer, perhaps?
2. What did you use as aiming points at 200 through 400 yards for each range? Did you hold the front sight blade higher over the top of the rear sight at different ranges? Did you look over the Rear Sight at longer ranges? Did you estimate drop at the different ranges and just tried to hold over that amount?
Now some comments.
What I believe you did so well was closely emulate the maximum accuracy of a period Longrifle, WITH the caveat that better bore condition (and possibly a tighter original bedding of the barrel?) MAY have given slightly better accuracy.
In combat, one would not have been able to clean, dry and allow the bore to cool between shots. This is not meant to be critical of the test, but rather just stating the difference between testing such as this and actual combat shooting.
PLEASE don’t think I’m criticizing your accuracy at 400 yards, because your tests in the most accurate way possible for rifle accuracy, pretty clearly show it would have been extremely unlikely to hit an enemy soldier at 400 yards even on the very first shot from a clean barrel. This did not surprise me at all.
Your 300 yard shooting in the most accurate way possible to shoot the rifle, without the detrimental conditions of combat, averaged 50 percent and that’s pretty darn good shooting.
What one cannot emulate is the detrimental effect of “combat stress” from enemies shooting at one while trying to make accurate shots; I.E. Adrenaline surge, lack of sleep, other forms of physical and psychological fatigue, all too often poor diet on military campaign, and other things that would have kept a Rifleman from making the most accurate shot/s the rifle was capable of doing. I honestly don't know how to factor that into the equation, but any of these things would have caused the Rifleman to be less accurate to far less accurate even at 200 yards let alone 300 or 400.
Once again, Thank You for having done these tests and sharing the results with us!!
Gus
-
Snuff, the weather ain't that bad. :D
Artificer:
#1. I suspect the bore condition may have been a slight issue, but not much. Except for the breech area, the Dickert bore wasn't really "rough," just not "smooth." It would have been more of a factor if shooting jacketed bullets, but with a "loose" patched ball like this, it was no problem to smoothly seat the ball. The patched ball never touched the rough area at the breech, that was filled with powder. I think the sights were much more of an issue for me; with the right sights for the shooter, I suspect I could have reduced the group size.
#2. The 200 yard sight picture had the top of the sight blade crowning over the rear sight notch. Um, kinda like this: -o-. The 300 yard sight picture had the rear tip of the front sight touching the top of the rear sight notch. The 400 yard sight picture was taken by lining up the front and rear sights, then elevating the muzzle so there was an amount of barrel showing roughly equal to 1 1/2 times the height of the front sight. In each case, I tried to center the blade on the white hat. Without something other than sky in the background, it was difficult to consistently estimate the amount of elevation.
The bore was cleaned between shots to maintain consistency in the test, and to simulate conditions for a "first shot" from a clean bore.
-
Dan, dont want to nit-pic but I thought 20 rods was 110 yards. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that a rod is 16&1/2 feet, can anyone verify that or maybe no one cares anyway since I'm nitpicking.
You are correct.
Yeah, I blew the math. Thanks for the correction.
Dan
-
Outstanding Habu.
50% at 300 is about all one could expect barring every thing being "ideal" for accurate shooting, which is not reality.
As you point out wind's effect of the RB is far more than most people would expect.
It will also cause errors in the vertical though it does not seem to effect slow twists as much as it will a 22LR at 200 yards for example. This cartridge will do some really strange things in the wind.
In shooting paper at 200 with a 54 RB I found that with a board clamped to a pickup bumper as a rest, seated with no really discernible wind I could keep 5 shots in about 6" with a TANG SIGHT adjusted for the range. However, ANY wind even a slight breeze would blow the group. So I would get out at daylight and shoot during the calm period we often have just after sun up.
The base accuracy is there its the sights, the wind and drop that really gum up the works. The fact that your accuracy loads were in the 1800 fps range is not a surprise either. I have never had good luck with loads under 1600 or so and the rifle I shot at 200 with the tang sight likes over 1900.
Shooting prone unsupported at 285 yards with a modern rifle, swiss powder but with about 5 ft of wind drift I got one hit in three on a "bad guy" silhouette. This with open barrel sights and holding upwind at the top of a small tree upwind of the target. If the man was mounted one shot would have killed or disabled his horse, one was a wide miss. I would also point out that at this distance the 495 ball did not create much dust signature. Since I had never shot this rifle at this distance I had to shoot off to one side about 20 yards to a smooth bare area to get a holdover. The hillside the target was on would produce no visible bullet strike.
We also have to remember that the bores of rifles used for sometime in service may not be perfect. So I think your testing is outstanding and the results are very "real world". That it was done with a period rifle is just icing on the cake.
Thank you, again.
Now the questions. What is the twist in the original barrel? How did the balls start? Hard-easy? Did the lands imprint on the ball at all?
Dan
-
I can explain this in about 3000 words. This acc...$#@*,the phone,BRB!
-
Dphariss: We also have to remember that the bores of rifles used for sometime in service may not be perfect. So I think your testing is outstanding and the results are very "real world". That it was done with a period rifle is just icing on the cake.
I agree with Dan.
As a side note, I don't think there's much one could do to top this test of Huba's, other then using another/different caliber rifle that is original to the time period. As for the question of accuracy - I feel the question has now been answered.
Sure, I'll tinker around with this out to 200 and 300 yards with my modern material Dickert flintlocks, but the results will be irrelevant to what Huba has used, and done.
If someone has an old period flintlock of another caliber and they'd wish to give what Huba did, a try. I'd be interested in the results.
-
Habu,
My apology for not being more clear that your shooting was for accuracy of the first round and overall accuracy. I tried to make that clear, but I may not have explained that well enough.
Thanks for the clarification on the erosion at the breech. I wasn’t sure if the powder charge kept the patched ball ahead of the corroded area or not.
Your information on how the wind affected accuracy points out it was just as important, if not a little more important, to be able to judge the effects of wind to hit a man size target at further ranges.
What I really got excited about was your description of how you sighted the rifle at the different ranges. This provides “real world” information on HOW a rifle could hit at longer ranges,
Your mention that the limitations of the period sights caused one to get less accuracy out of the rifle than it would otherwise been capable of, does not surprise me in the least.
As I mentioned in earlier posts, I’ve been discussing this thread with a person who is a better shot than I and has an impressive background in both NSSA and RB shooting and has won a lot of Gold and Silver medals at both Regional and the World Championships of the International Muzzleloading Committee, where for many years the only guns one was allowed to shoot were original guns. Just a few weeks ago, he was telling me about an original flintlock Longrifle of about the 1820 time period he bought/traded for in the early 80’s at a very good price because someone had drilled the barrel for adjustable sights. (Yes, he considered if blasphemous as most of us would. Grin.) Since the rifle no longer had the original sights and because it was already in that condition, he decided to put Olympic Style sights on it and took it out and shot it at what turned out to be a maximum range of 535 yards.
He mentioned that once they figured out the windage, he and others averaged hitting a man sized silhouette 7 to 8 times out of 10 BECAUSE the sights were that good. Of course, after that testing, he took those sights off, plugged the screw holes in the barrel and put “legal” original type sights on the rifle to shoot it in International Competition.
To Everyone,
There was an episode on the Battle of Shiloh on the History Channel within the past couple of weeks that brought out something VERY important to accurate shooting and combat effectiveness, that was just as true in the Rev War. This goes against the original quotes about how Rangers or Riflemen could “subsist on a handful of parched corn per day, along with good water and remain in robust health for long periods of time.” It doesn’t matter if the original person/s who wrote that were exaggerating or believed the exaggerations of others, it just wasn’t true even then.
Nutritionists from that History Channel Show pointed out that one needs between 3,000 and 3,500 calories per day for sustained defensive combat while for sustained offensive combat, one needs about 5,000 calories per day. As an example of modern combat rations, the “C Rats” meals my generation used right up to modern MRE meals have about 1,200 calories per meal. They were and are SUPPOSED to have been issued for a maximum of 21 days before better “hot rations” are served, but many of us remember eating them for longer periods than that right up to the early 90’s in Somalia.) They pointed out that the Confederate Soldiers had “used up” the calories they had on the first day of the battle in offensive combat and were therefore not physically capable of delivering the “knock out blow” on the first day. Thus, a handful of parched corn and water will NOT keep one in effective fighting condition for very long and especially not in offensive combat. .
If one looks at the diet British Soldiers got here in the French and Indian War and the Revolution, it was of far better nutritional value and overall number of calories than what Americans (including Riflemen) often got. Though it may not have significantly changed the outcomes of some or even most of the battles of the Rev War, the general lack of good rations often were a key factor in the Americans not doing as well as the British.
One of the best examples of combat fatigue from extended marching and lack of food was when Horatio Gates foolishly and against the advice of his subordinate commanders, decided to march into South Carolina through Loyalist controlled lands. His army not only was not very combat experienced, but what made it worse was rations had been and were very low. Gates wound up marching his men right up to their physical limits while promising them great food and Rum when they got near Camden while KNOWING there were no such rations available. THEN to make things MUCH worse, the night before the battle, the only thing the Americans had to eat was green corn AND Gates issued molasses instead of the Rum he had promised them. That led to rampant dysentery and destroyed the American’s combat effectiveness even though they outnumbered the British. American Infantry, Artillery and Rifleman most assuredly were nowhere near as accurate as they otherwise might have been and lost the Battle of Camden, even though they outnumbered the British.
Gus
-
Dan, twist was about 1:48. I say "about" because when I looked through the barrel it made most of a revolution in the length of the barrel (40.5"), but I forgot to actually measure it. The muzzle didn't really have a "crown," whoever shortened it left it square. After dumping powder down the bore, I laid the patching across the muzzle, set a ball on top, and pressed it in with the handle of my barlow. A quick swipe with the blade, then push the ball down with the loading rod. It wasn't as slick as a new barrel, but the feedback I got from the rod was more that it was "drag" on the patch rather than "roughness." Hope that makes sense.
On an unfired ball, there was a faint impression of the fabric from the lands. On a fired ball, there were clear impressions from the rifling.
I was trying to to do was see what could be expected with a well-used hunting rifle, loaded and shot using written descriptions from the general period. It was funny, after a while I kind of forgot the age of the rifle.
Wind was a real bugbear, but I knew it would be when I started. Shooting over the harvested soybean field gave me almost nothing to indicate the wind over the distance I was shooting. When I used the old barn as a backstop, I was shooting over pasture and near a windbreak: I could actually read the wind all the way in. That got interesting.
I think we are looking at the 400 yard shot reported by Hanger--or at least the calculations that went into it-- all wrong. I don't think the Mill-Dam Shooter "missed his target" because I don't think he was using an individual officer as a target ("aiming point" maybe, but much expectation of hitting his aiming point). I think he was aiming at the area containing the two officers/Bugle Man/3 horses, an area about 6' square. In that sense, he HIT his target, in the same sense that you aim at a particular point on a deer's shoulder, but consider it a hit when the deer goes down.
First off, the rifleman had evidently shot his rifle enough to have an idea of where it would hit at that range. Maybe he was an excellent judge of distance, maybe he walked over the ground the night before to get an idea of distance to various points from the mill-dam (I would, just the same way I am constantly estimating distances between various points over ground where I hunt, or might hunt.). In any event, he had an idea of the distance and what to expect from his rifle.
When using the barn as a backstop, despite my best estimation of the winds, at 400 yards I often got groups that might run 36-42" tall by 5-6' wide, several feet to the side of my aiming point, due to the wind. I posted 2 targets side-by-side about 2' apart, with the bottoms about 4' off the ground, as if they were on horseback. Then I did my best to shoot into the wind. Almost 60% of the time (17 of 30 shots) I either hit the individual silhouettes, between them, or right under them (where the horses would have been).
-
If you read Joseph Plumb Martin's "Private Yankee Doodle" you will wonder how they even managed to survive, let alone march and fight. The Revolution soldier was in an almost always state of near starvation. John Stein
-
Habu,
I don’t think we can say for certain if the Rifleman shooting at Hanger was firing at one Officer or the group. The Silver Trimming on Tarleton’s and Hanger’s uniforms MAY have been able to be seen at that distance considering how clear Hanger mentions the day was and especially if the silver “caught the light.” I also don’t think it matters if he was firing at one man or the group, from the results of your own tests.
You mentioned you had a difficult time “holding over” the targets for the proper elevation at 400 yards. I’m sure the Rifleman who shot at Hanger and Tartleton had the same problem.
The three British Soldiers were just outside or forward of the woods behind them. IF there was a tree behind them that was high enough and in close to the right spot, I think the Rifleman would have used that as a basic aiming point and adjusted off of it for windage. Of course if there was no tree tall enough behind the British, then the Rifleman would have tried to estimate the “hold over” as you did and found how difficult it was to hit when doing so.
Gus
-
Gus, no worries about questions or comments; we're all trying to figure things out.
The sights were a problem because that darn back sight was too close to my eye. When I handled the rifle as a teenager, the sights were fine (lower than I was used to, but I could see them fine). But now. . . .
I turned 48 last Saturday. Aside from age-related changes in my vision, a head injury a few years ago left me with some issues. I have a bit of double vision; both that and the amount of correction needed seem to change through the course of the day. The prescription in my shooting glasses is five years old because my vision isn't consistent enough to work up a new prescription. There were times when I simply couldn't force my vision enough to use those sights. If the rear sight were moved forward about 9-10" it would have been much easier.
-
If you read Joseph Plumb Martin's "Private Yankee Doodle" you will wonder how they even managed to survive, let alone march and fight. The Revolution soldier was in an almost always state of near starvation. John Stein
John,
I agree that most often Patriot Americans were at a minimum "malnourished" overall in that War and too many times close to starvation. That's my point that in the physical condition many/most of the Soldiers and Riflemen were actually in during the war, they could not shoot as accurately as they did in peace time for that reason alone and not including other factors.. .
Gus
-
Gus, no worries about questions or comments; we're all trying to figure things out.
The sights were a problem because that darn back sight was too close to my eye. When I handled the rifle as a teenager, the sights were fine (lower than I was used to, but I could see them fine). But now. . . .
I turned 48 last Saturday. Aside from age-related changes in my vision, a head injury a few years ago left me with some issues. I have a bit of double vision; both that and the amount of correction needed seem to change through the course of the day. The prescription in my shooting glasses is five years old because my vision isn't consistent enough to work up a new prescription. There were times when I simply couldn't force my vision enough to use those sights. If the rear sight were moved forward about 9-10" it would have been much easier.
Thank you for understanding.
I turned 60 this past fall and with the detached retina in my left eye that was reattached, but has left half the vision in that eye a dark cloudy blue and the cataract in my right eye the VA said was not quite large enough to operate on last fall, leaves my own vision too poor to do good testing. Another reason I applaud you for doing these tests and in the manner you did them.
Gus
-
Gus, no worries about questions or comments; we're all trying to figure things out.
The sights were a problem because that darn back sight was too close to my eye. When I handled the rifle as a teenager, the sights were fine (lower than I was used to, but I could see them fine). But now. . . .
I turned 48 last Saturday. Aside from age-related changes in my vision, a head injury a few years ago left me with some issues. I have a bit of double vision; both that and the amount of correction needed seem to change through the course of the day. The prescription in my shooting glasses is five years old because my vision isn't consistent enough to work up a new prescription. There were times when I simply couldn't force my vision enough to use those sights. If the rear sight were moved forward about 9-10" it would have been much easier.
My shooting eye has always been a magnet for damage since I was in high school. The latest was a chip from a broken lathe tool. Took my safety glasses off and forgot to put the on again. It was just a scratch. HOWEVER, the gave me erythromycin eye ointment. I found out with the second application that I was allergic to the stuff and it caused swelling and distortion of my eye ball. Was functionally blind in one eye for a few days. ::) Then there is the stuff I take for acid reflux that causes dry eye and will cause the eyelid to weld to the eye while asleep if I don't use ointment (basically Vaseline)...
Getting old is not for sissys....
Dan
-
Lyman is marketing a device (Lyman Hawkeye tm) that has a suction cup on one end to stick to your eye-glasses lense. It has a rotating plastic arm that has at it's end, a peep sight. I picked one up at the Wholesale Sports last week but it's been a mite to cold to test it. I suspect in freezing temps, I might have to use tape to affix it to my right lense. When I tried it in the basement - eureka!!!!!!!! - clear sights!! First time in 20 years.
-
Thanks Daryl for that heads up on the Lyman device. Something like this could add years of shooting to some of the older shots. Is this Lyman thing somewhat like the Merit optical device in actual use?
-
Yes- it is called Lyman Hawkeye (tm) shooter's optic aid.
It's hold is fixed - non-adjustable - seems to work for me just aiming a rifle in the shop. I havne't shot withone yet- not sure how it will work in freezing temperatures - probably lose it.
-
I wanted to reply to Dan's note about old age that "it isn't the years, it is the miles," but when it comes to vision, that isn't the case. As we grow older, our eyes simply don't work as well. "Accommodation"--the eye's ability to keep multiple objects (rear sight, front sight, target) seemingly in simultaneous focus--begins to fail on us. We see it on older rifles, where over time the rear sight has been moved forward.
Things like the Merit (and maybe the Lyman, haven't seen it yet) help today, but for the tests I was trying to do, it seemed like it would be cheating. (Of course, the argument could be made that correcting my vision with eyeglasses was cheating--I won't go there.) In side-by-side tests at 100 yards, using a rifle set up with modern-style sights, using a Merit will usually gain me an additional few points. I've never tried one with a flintlock at longer ranges.
-
Huba, I kinda look at it this way. The testing you did is the kind of shooting done by much younger men then many of us here today, and it was no doubt done when these younger men had the good eyesight, like many of us here use to.
-
John,
My wife is a direct descendant of Joseph Plumb Martin on her Mother's side. His grave is in the Sandy Point cemetery outside of Stockton Springs, ME.
-
John,
My wife is a direct descendant of Joseph Plumb Martin on her Mother's side. His grave is in the Sandy Point cemetery outside of Stockton Springs, ME.
I feel it is a wonderful thing the National Park Service and even more the History Channel have educated so many people on his service.
Gus
-
that geneology stuff is great, I was reading the book Blood& Thunder byHampton Sides, that led me to looking into the rosster of men under Col Kearney, which led me to a old short book memories of a old solider by my 6th GGrandpa who fought in both the F&I and the revolutionary war, fun stuff when you start digging. by the way his name was Cpt David Perry voulntered in 1758 when he was 16 , 1759 with the provincal Rangers at Quebec, later in life in 1776 with Co8 #rd reg state of Conn, promoted to Cpt in 1777 with 4th Battalion. just follow the crumbs and it's suprising where you end up. lot of sites out the to get you going. I happen to be a Mormon and use the church site which is unbelievable for a resourse.
-
My Sister has spent a lot of time, in the last 10 years or so, researching many parts of our family tree. She has often mentioned how the Mormon Church site/s have been invaluable in much of the research, along with other sites.
Gus.