AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Dennis Glazener on September 04, 2010, 06:36:55 PM
-
Recently I was able to see and handle an original flint wall gun. It was a smooth bore and shot a 1/4 lb ball. I have always wonder about the benefit of these guns. What was the advantage having them? Longer range? Was it the fright factor?
Seems to me that they would just waste powder/lead without any major benefit over a regular longrifle.
Now that I think of it maybe loaded with shot/nails/rocks etc it might make a great impact of charging Indians or Frenchmen.
Dennis
-
Dennis,
As I understand it, they were used to pick of artillerymen that would be pounding your enclosure (fort?) with cannon fire. Basically a .50 BMG of colonial days. I'd be looking for cover, even if it missed. A four ounce ball could do a lot of damage, even to a cannon carriage @ a couple of hundred yards. Say nothing about what it could do to the guys touching it off.
-
I showed at least 1 signed wall gun in my 2nd MD book that I did w/ Dan Hartzler. Plans of pre-Rev War forts -- as early as King Wm's war-- were star-shaped [or similar coming to points] so that swivel wall guns could be mounted. They were probably useless except against a mass charge -- or as a terror weapon against superstitious native aborigine. They would cut a wide swath loaded with what was then called swan shot. They were a more powerful blunderbuss. I doubt any [wall guns or blunderbusses] were used except in some dire emergency with anything but large shot.
Interesting;y I found a long reference to wall guns, perhaps 50 or so, being retrofitted with smaller barrels [1" or more down to a tiny 3/4 inch, .75 caliber]. One point of discussion was about the much larger gunlocks. I once owned a British [?] c.1750 wall gun lock and it was just about 2 X the size of a Brown Bess lock.
Altho the MD wall gun noted above was Rev War piece in my considerable research in various extant state archives I cannot recall ever seeing a contract tendered for wall guns. But at least several forts had them, including Fort Washington, lost to British w/ considerable loss of men + materiel soon after the evacuation of NYC.
-
Actually they shoot much farther and more accurately at distance than the "normal" calibered rifle. They were used at forts to keep the enemy out of normal rifle range. And, as was mentioned above, a 1/4oz ball could do a tremendous amount of damage to artillery. All the same applies to those that were mounted on boats.
-
Thanks guys, interesting to hear. I like the analogy of the BMG of its day!
I can just see the swath that 4 bore would make through a group of men charging the gate of a fort!
Dennis
-
As I recall, Gen George Washington issued a written order for the Continental Armys' purchase of 3 or 4 (? - not precisely sure of the number) large bore 'wall guns' and that original hand-written order still exists, in U.S.A. military document archives I'm pretty sure that one of Gen. George Washingtons' original wall guns resides in the firearms collection in the museum at the USMA at West Point. I believe that they were effective out to ~800 yards.
-
My friend Roger built a rifled wall gun for a customer. He shot a deer at 325 yds with it. This gun is a 1" bore, rifled, made by Ed Rayle. Kicks like a mule team, but frighteningly accurate.
Roger is now making another wall gun, based on the Springfield Armory piece.
Tom
-
I would really like to have one of my own, but alas i have squandered my gun money on a cannon and an orignal English fowler. Oh well there is always next year. ;D :D.
Ronnie
-
As I recall, Gen George Washington issued a written order for the Continental Armys' purchase of 3 or 4 (? - not precisely sure of the number) large bore 'wall guns' and that original hand-written order still exists, in U.S.A. military document archives I'm pretty sure that one of Gen. George Washingtons' original wall guns resides in the firearms collection in the museum at the USMA at West Point. I believe that they were effective out to ~800 yards.
I seem to remember that Washington stipulated that those guns were to have enough accuracy to hit a sheet of writing paper at 600 yards. However, I don't know how large, or small, a sheet of writing paper of that time would be.
God bless
-
I have seen such references; most turn out to exaggerations. I want you to see a 1 x 18 sheet of paper at more than 300 yards -- let alone hit it. It is very difficult to shoot what you cannot see. And of course no optics! either spotting scope or telescopic sight. Indeed I'd like to see Col Chandler, long time USMC sniper instructor + author of Death from Afar, hit at 600 yards a piece of writing paper with iron sights and a modern gun with high velocity ammo [such as 30-378].
-
This one fired a 1" ball,quite impressive :o
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi264.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii164%2Falexsnr%2Fniagara-Tulle078.jpg&hash=e68e73f8067200dafe5d092ff0689a4e4ef9e9cd)
-
alexsnr, You need to take a pic of your Giant Wall Gun along side one of those tiny Guns I seen at Lexington Show...."David & Goliath" Is it rifled? If not ..Fill that sister up with shot and take a whole flock of turkey home for the wife to clean. ;D Not that I would do sucha thing.Is there much difference between a Wall Gun and them big smooth bores the market hunters used on their boats to wipe out a flock of sitting duck.
-
Hmmmm, I don't think I wanna straddle one of those supports on the tripod then that thing goes off. :o
God bless
-
That is not my gun,It is a repro that someone had at a private event.it was smooth bored.even on a swivel it was quite a beast.It was neat but I really have no desire to shoot one like it.just finding a flint for it could be a project.
Alex
-
I think you have to put the use of and the effectiveness of, these firearms, in the context of the military tactics of the colonial period, which were shoulder to shoulder and grouped, in ranks, wide and deep. These weren't sniper weapons. Just 'lobbing' one in,' so to speak, would/could prove effective, much like a medieval bowman that shoots for the range and not a specific target.
I would not discount a rifled firearm equipped with open sights, a man intimately familiar with and practiced in their use and some luck. During the American Civil War (War Between The States-War Of Northern Aggression) and open sighted weapons were still the norm, there was a Union General, on horseback (whose name I can't recall) that was positioned behind his men 1000+ yards from enemy lines. His staff officers told him to dismount as they feared that he presented a target and he replied that the range was so great that he feared neither artillery nor rifle fire... his reply is noted in military records as being his last, as a .58 Enfield round hit him below the left eye, between the bridge of his nose and his eye socket, killing him instantly and knocking him off of his horse.
To reinforce that it's not all just about luck, modern/trained marksmen/riflemen using these same BP rifled weapons, shooting at 'farm-fresh watermelon targets' at ranges of 1000+ yards have shown that these type of shots are indeed not only repeatable, but can be accomplished with amazing frequency... with open sights.
We've grown accustomed to the aides of and advances in technology, in shooting, such that we have become pre-conditioned that they are necessary to produce 'accuracy' at long range. So, in closing, even if I knew I opposed an enemy, at distance, that only had open sights, I'd still try not to look important. I kinda like the DNA in my watermelon, right where it is... ;D
-
"Is there much difference between a Wall Gun and them big smooth bores the market hunters used on their boats to wipe out a flock of sitting duck."
I think what you are refering to is called a punt gun. Long ago, an old timer told me that these guns were mounted on a small boats (ibelieve called a punts) on the Mississippi River and used to bring down flocks of ducks and geese to be sold to the hotel restaurants in the St. Louis area.
-
What you refere too as a Wall gun here in the UK we call them Rampart guns they came in all bore sizes the ones used on ship were also known as Swivel guns and mostly used when boarding and blasting out the rigging .The punt gun is a lot larger this type of gun we still used today on the foreshore and is shot from a punt see image there was also a large gun of 2 bore size that is called a Bank gun which was shot from the sand dunes and also the sea wall at waders feeding along the tide line of the incoming tide.
Feltwad
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj152%2FRamrod_2006%2FP1010025.jpg&hash=e6af38d1aada3a21847cfa57ae588d7605517d1e)
-
...............just finding a flint for it could be a project.
Alex
Alex, if you ever need them, I have about a dozen flints for that size lock.
:)
-
I think you have to put the use of and the effectiveness of, these firearms, in the context of the military tactics of the colonial period, which were shoulder to shoulder and grouped, in ranks, wide and deep. These weren't sniper weapons. Just 'lobbing' one in,' so to speak, would/could prove effective, much like a medieval bowman that shoots for the range and not a specific target.
I'm not sure if this is fitting here but:
Wilmington, North Carolina
4 -10 July 1781
Colonel Thomas Bludworth wanted to retaliate for a massacre that happened at Rouse’s Tavern in March of 1781. Bludworth’s friend, James Love, had been killed by soldiers of the 82nd Regiment there. Bludworth did not have the force to take on the British troops stationed in Wilmington, but when he was on a fox chase one morning he discovered a tall cypress on Negro Head Point (present-day Point Peter), across the Cape Fear from Wilmington. This cypress was seventy feet to the first limb and the base was seven feet in diameter. The fox was inside the tree and when Colonel Bludworth entered with his dogs he found it hollow. On that day he started planning how to avenge the death of James Love.
The Bludworth’s happened to manufacture sword-blades, pikes, pistols and the best rifles in the area. Colonel Bludworth made a rifle that could carry a two-ounce ball (.83 caliber) from the cypress tree on Negro Head Point to the British formation area on Market Dock in Wilmington. He practiced shooting the long distance at a drawn figure of a man on his barn door. All of these plans he kept secret.
In early July he took his son, Tim, and his servant, Jim Paget, into Negro Head Point on the pretense of hunting fox or raccoon. He told the boys to take along some food for it may be a long hunt. They filled two wallets with provisions and he took an auger, a large jug of water, and “Old Bess” his huge rifle. The trio canoed down the river until they arrived at the tree. The Colonel then told the boys his plan, they would be living in the tree for two weeks or more.
The three of them built a scaffold inside the tree, and , made an opening in the tree with the auger. Other holes were bored in the tree higher up to admit light and air. They also cleared away enough of the leaves and branches so as to have a clear shot at the Market Wharf. The Colonel trusted in the wind, which goes uniformly down the river, to carry away the smoke and the report of the big rifle.
On the morning of the 4th of July the Colonel looked out through the hole and saw a group of British waiting in front of Nelson’s liquor store. Colonel Bludworth took aim and fired, knocking down one of the men. Four other British quickly carried the shot man into the store.
Bludworth fired a second time and knocked a second man down. The trio in the tree could hear the beating of the drums as panic set in.
A column of soldiers marched down to the wharf, and Jim Paget asked if he could try his hand at shooting. The Colonel agreed and Jim took his place in the raised platform. Jim aimed at the formation and fired. The formation broke and ran for cover. Boats rowed across the river looking for the source of the sniper, but none came to the tree. The British thought it was impossible for a rifle shot to be made from there. The snipers called it a day and ate their provisions.
The next morning Colonel Bludworth looked out the hole in the tree and saw no one on the wharf. Jim Paget told the Colonel that around 10:00 the British would line up at the liquor store. At 10:00 the soldiers quickly moved into the store, fearful of the hidden sniper, but when there was no shooting that morning they became more confident and waited in groups around the door of the shops. The Colonel lined up his sights on one of the groups, and fired. Bludworth saw another soldier being dragged into the shop. A dragoon rode up to the dock, peering in the direction of the opposite shore when he too was knocked from his saddle and into the water.
The snipers continued this sport for a week when a Tory told the British that he had seen Colonel Bludworth and two other men go to Negro Head Point with a large rifle of his own manufacture. The Tory told them that he was probably concealed in Negro Head Point and they should cut down all the trees and underbrush that could hide the Rebels.
Colonel Bludworth saw boats coming toward his hiding place and he had Jim close up the hole they had been firing out of. Twenty men landed on the Point and began to cut away the undergrowth with axes. When they arrived at the hiding place of the snipers it was late in the evening. The soldiers decided to cut down that tree in the morning. Ten men were left on the Point, with three sentinels watching over them. At first Bludworth thought of tomahawking the guard by their hidden canoe, but Jim had been discovered by the guard. The sentinel cried “Who goes there?”, but Jim impersonated a wild hog. The guard relaxed, and soon fell asleep. The Colonel took a stick and coming behind the guard he wedged the stick in his mouth, then bound him hand and foot. The three snipers then safely escaped.
-
Great story! I wonder how far they were shooting?
-
I have seen such references; most turn out to exaggerations. I want you to see a 1 x 18 sheet of paper at more than 300 yards -- let alone hit it. It is very difficult to shoot what you cannot see. And of course no optics! either spotting scope or telescopic sight. Indeed I'd like to see Col Chandler, long time USMC sniper instructor + author of Death from Afar, hit at 600 yards a piece of writing paper with iron sights and a modern gun with high velocity ammo [such as 30-378].
I think you need to research the sizes of paper sheets in the 18th century.
Then look into what can be done with iron sights.
Dan
-
Indeed I'd like to see Col Chandler, long time USMC sniper instructor + author of Death from Afar, hit at 600 yards a piece of writing paper with iron sights and a modern gun with high velocity ammo [such as 30-378].
I don't think the Colonel would have a problem and he'd have no real need for the 30-378.
NRA Highpower competitors regularly shoot 4" or smaller groups with an iron sighted rifle in .308 at 600 yards from prone and 1,000 yard competitors in such matches as the Palma shoot sub 10" groups with iron sights again using the .308
-
Most NRA competitors have now gone to the AR-15 platform for high power competition. Some of those old boys are shooting groups as good or better as those shot with the M-14 at 600 yards, prone slow fire.
I would have never believed that the puny .223 could be made to shoot that well, had I not seen it...and with iron, military style sights.
God bless
-
Is the quotation above supposed to be from the period? I ask because I don't think the word "sniper" was in use in the 18th century - at least according to the OED its first known use is in 1824 in an Anglo Indian military newspaper. Also, the syntax is modern and much more conversational than 18th century writing usually is.
-
Is the quotation above supposed to be from the period? I ask because I don't think the word "sniper" was in use in the 18th century - at least according to the OED its first known use is in 1824 in an Anglo Indian military newspaper. Also, the syntax is modern and much more conversational than 18th century writing usually is.
Most things in history have been rewritten or were written at a later date from accounts by the people involved.
I don't see any particular reason to doubt it. The fact that they give a decimal bore size for the rifle indicates its modern. But lots of things you read about are rewritten.
PROVING its true or false would require detective work.
Its a good story and is feasible.
Dan
For more information see:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:TRcLsyuysPYJ:www4.ncsu.edu/~jam3/1781-3.pdf+Revolutionary+War+Colonel+Bludworth&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjDYiu46C5crSF8Yye-JceXgX6rl6_3Qafc1SxjjvhvIoic33H6qx6LlGidCz72G9HTAsvTX7C5V9C79SIcbwi7CQCFqofCnTNmrmIzgjn4Yrrv2yI488IOv7DOC1ufXGUPAHXT&sig=AHIEtbQjxNOqY4v-EYLeTwCs6lNS6QQJIQ
-
I have seen such references; most turn out to exaggerations. I want you to see a 1 x 18 sheet of paper at more than 300 yards -- let alone hit it. It is very difficult to shoot what you cannot see. And of course no optics! either spotting scope or telescopic sight. Indeed I'd like to see Col Chandler, long time USMC sniper instructor + author of Death from Afar, hit at 600 yards a piece of writing paper with iron sights and a modern gun with high velocity ammo [such as 30-378].
Here is the modern sizes of the scoring rings of 600 yard targets and these are round rings:
(a) MR-1 target -Enlarged aiming black for use in 600-yard matches only.
Aiming Black (inches)
X ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00
10 ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.00
9 ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00
8 ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.00
I personally witnessed an Army shooter fire a possible at 600 yards in 1974 at Range 4 at Quantico during I think it was a Regional Match and that means all his 20 shots for record were inside at least the 12 inch circle. He was using a NM M14 with NM open sights. (I was a Block Official at that match).
The same year I witnessed a NG shooter fire a 96- 4v at 1,000 yards with a standard issue M1 Garand and that was with standard sights, not NM sights.
Our requirements standard for THE Marine Corps Rifle Team in the mid 1980's was a ten shot group fired at 300 yards from our super expensive test rack and the group size had to be less than 2 1/2". This was from our double lugged, McMillan stocked, Krieger barreled M14 rifles. We had so many of them that went under a 2" group we almost made that our standard. I've also built NM Garands in that time period that would almost hold that group size. Now most of our shooters could not hold that tight of a group, but our rifles did.
I was a contemporary of and am still a friend of Norm Chandler. I was a Gunnery Sergeant when he was the XO of WTBN at Quantico, though I had known him for years before that.
My highest requal score with a standard service rifle was 249 out of 250 and that was with a perfect score of 50 at the 500 yard range, prone for ten shots. Though the target is a silhouette, you forget trying to make head shots and actually use the shoulders as an aiming point. The target was 40" tall (including the head) and 20" wide. My shots were all well within a 20" circle at that range and that was with a standard issue M16A2. Further, I am NOT a NM shooter and have never fired a round in NM competition.
Before I came in the Marine Corps, I could not imagine hitting something at 200 yards standing, but in boot camp I ran 7 straight bullsyes until I fired on the target next to mine. That was with a standard M14 rifle. I had grown up using shotguns and .22's but had never fired a high power rifle. So I realize how it would seem hard to believe until one see's it done.
Gus
-
Back to the subject of wall/rampart guns. Grin.
I very much like the analogy of them being the period ".50 BMG" round we used in Barrett .50 cal. BMG caliber rifles. The main target for these rifles are portable radar units, jeep sized vehicles, unarmored trucks, etc.
However, in the period and with those wall/rampart guns that were smooth bore, I would suggest their use would have been more like mobile artillery. Someone else mentioned they would have been used against field artillery pieces and I believe that is dead on. The most popular British field artillery piece was a 3 or 4 pound gun called a "grasshopper." This name could have come from either the way the guns recoiled and hopped or it could have been a common Etymology from the official name "Galloper" for some light field artillery pieces. (Perhaps not unlike the common term in the 18th century was "Flutterby" and got changed to "Butterfly.") These were advanced and in the actual battle line with the infantry. Exploding artillery shells were not commonly used with these guns even by the British and even if they were available for the smaller field pieces.
So what do you do at forts where such "grasshopper" guns could be advanced outside the zone of fire of your small artillery, if you even had artillery at the fort? The grasshopper guns were large enough to batter down the doors of most forts, if not the walls, so they were a real threat. OK, on the wall of the fort, you set up swivel sockets so you can move a wall gun around to meet the threat at any point or angle you need to fire. One or two wall guns at such forts could overcome the threat of more grasshopper guns than would usually be used against the fort. After firing, you humped the gun back under the protection of the walls to load and move it. Then pop up at another place the swivel sockets were set up. That also meant the opposing grasshopper guns could never be aimed quickly against the rampart gun as was done against normal artillery gun ports in the fort's walls.
With Washington's disastrous experience at Fort Necessity. I could see him having a personal desire to have some wall/rampart guns to be used for future need.
Gus
-
Cool picture of boat and guns..tortugatrading.com has a couple antique "Wall Guns" . They don't have a price listed, probably a lil salty..Every now and again I see a antique "Rampart Gun" for auction at one of those European Antique Guns & Armour auctions....Such as Herman Historica.
-
I have seen such references; most turn out to exaggerations. I want you to see a 1 x 18 sheet of paper at more than 300 yards -- let alone hit it. It is very difficult to shoot what you cannot see. And of course no optics! either spotting scope or telescopic sight. Indeed I'd like to see Col Chandler, long time USMC sniper instructor + author of Death from Afar, hit at 600 yards a piece of writing paper with iron sights and a modern gun with high velocity ammo [such as 30-378].
I don't know about a piece of writing paper, but on a clear day with young eyes it is possible to hit high contrast targets [ie, visible] at very long ranges with open sighted rifles. 300, 600 even 1000 yd matches were popular during the late MLing era. My own experience with the modern M1 [peep sight] suggests the possibilities are there as I could regularly hit the bull at 300 yds [prone]. I would not discount a good sniper's abilities to hit long range targets, although the modern sniper uses alot of high-tech gear.
-
I have no original documentation on this earlier than the Civil War, but I found an original reference source in that time period for estimating how far a man was from a Sharpshooter by what parts of the body and certain common uniform items could be distinguished. It has been well over two decades since I gave the reference to the Instructors at the Scout Sniper Instructor school at Quantico so I don't remember exactly where I found it. It mentioned distances of how far you could distinguish parts of the body like fingers, the head, arms, legs, etc. It also mentioned distinguishing some articles of clothing or equipment (like a canteen for example) then in current use. They tried it on a whim at various ranges and found it was pretty accurate out to 600 yards, so they incorporated some of it into their then current syllabus as an additional method of range estimation.
The National Guard shooter I mentioned who fired the 96-4V at 1,000 yards with the issue M1 Garand in 1974 had only drawn that rifle from the Armory about a week and a half before he fired the match. He did not know the "come ups" from the 600 yard line to the 1,000 as he had never fired at 1,000. He asked me what the normal come up was, but I couldn't legally tell him as I was a Block Official. So I went to a Marine Shooter and asked him to tell the Garand Shooter. The Marine shooter at first didn't understand till I reminded him that as I Block Official, I couldn't tell the shooter. Then the Marine shooter said, "Oh yeah, that's right." and he went over and told him. The National Guard shooter only had two sighting shots before his shots for record, but that info got him on paper on his first shot. That 96-4v was about the 4th highest score that day against the NRA bolt guns and all the NM rifles used by the Army and Marine Teams. I am not sure the NG shooter fully realized how well he had shot until most of the shooters on the Army and Marine Teams went over to congratulate him and look as his Garand. I do remember it was an HRA, but I don't remember which standard service rifle barrel was in it.
-
Back to the subject of wall/rampart guns. Grin.
I very much like the analogy of them being the period ".50 BMG" round we used in Barrett .50 cal. BMG caliber rifles. The main target for these rifles are portable radar units, jeep sized vehicles, unarmored trucks, etc.
However, in the period and with those wall/rampart guns that were smooth bore, I would suggest their use would have been more like mobile artillery. Someone else mentioned they would have been used against field artillery pieces and I believe that is dead on. The most popular British field artillery piece was a 3 or 4 pound gun called a "grasshopper." This name could have come from either the way the guns recoiled and hopped or it could have been a common Etymology from the official name "Galloper" for some light field artillery pieces. (Perhaps not unlike the common term in the 18th century was "Flutterby" and got changed to "Butterfly.") These were advanced and in the actual battle line with the infantry. Exploding artillery shells were not commonly used with these guns even by the British and even if they were available for the smaller field pieces.
So what do you do at forts where such "grasshopper" guns could be advanced outside the zone of fire of your small artillery, if you even had artillery at the fort? The grasshopper guns were large enough to batter down the doors of most forts, if not the walls, so they were a real threat. OK, on the wall of the fort, you set up swivel sockets so you can move a wall gun around to meet the threat at any point or angle you need to fire. One or two wall guns at such forts could overcome the threat of more grasshopper guns than would usually be used against the fort. After firing, you humped the gun back under the protection of the walls to load and move it. Then pop up at another place the swivel sockets were set up. That also meant the opposing grasshopper guns could never be aimed quickly against the rampart gun as was done against normal artillery gun ports in the fort's walls.
With Washington's disastrous experience at Fort Necessity. I could see him having a personal desire to have some wall/rampart guns to be used for future need.
Gus
I would expect that the wall guns, 1" bore or so, were good to at least 500 yards with decent combat accuracy on man sized targets. If one or two on the gun got shot it would likely "spoil the aim" of the remaining crew. Not to mention damage to the gun carriage if the crew were missed and the carriage struck.
This would force small artillery back neat the their extreme effective range.
It would deny the enemy the use of a wider circle around the fortifications.
A common 50 caliber rifle will make things plenty hot for a gun crew to 300. 3-4 good riflemen could make it impossible to serve the guns at 300 unless protected by terrain while loading so a rifle shooting a 3/4 to 1 pound ball would be a fearsome weapon for siege defense. It would also discourage enemy riflemen from shooting over the walls from distant trees etc.
And they could be carried easily on a pack horse or in a small boat.
Someone needs to make a 60 pound wall gun with a 1" more and a 10 ft twist or so and test it.
Dan
-
Does anyone know who made the wall gun that was at Martin's Station this year for the Raid? We looked it over (still mounted on the swivel, couldn't take it down for a close inspection) but didn't notice any maker's signature...seems it was a 1" bore. Very impressive looking, and sounded like a small cannon with the blank charges they used. I'd hate to face one!
Greg