AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: blunderbuss on May 07, 2011, 04:58:02 AM
-
The "Muzzle loading caplock Rifle"states ( I'll find chapter and verse if you want) that congress appropriated money for 50 telescopic scopes in 1776 there is no further mention of these scopes. The author then claims they weren't scopes with optics,how does he know that? They sure had telescopes with optics in 1776 Then we read of penetration test at 300 yards being not very impressive. Then I read of a British officer who claims a fellow shot at him from 400 yards (I'll go find that too if you want) missed him but killed a bugler's horse right behind him. Now there's some penetration. I've also seen bullet moulds with conical bullets in the same block as RB. Could it be possible that someone was using conical bullets and scopes in 1776? Anyone got anything more on that?
-
Good question. I have also seen the same combo bullet molds and wondered the same thing. I think 400 yards is quite a stretch, but then again they didn't have the same measuring devices we have today neither.
I once read an article in a Civil War era newspaper that advertised "Kentucky Rifles". The ad read something like; "those Kentucky rifles that can kill an abolitionist at 300 yards". Maybe there's some truth to the old long range claims after all ... (???)
-
Good question. I have also seen the same combo bullet molds and wondered the same thing. I think 400 yards is quite a stretch, but then again they didn't have the same measuring devices we have today neither.
I once read an article in a Civil War era newspaper that advertised "Kentucky Rifles". The ad read something like; "those Kentucky rifles that can kill an abolitionist at 300 yards". Maybe there's some truth to the old long range claims after all ... (???)
I could do that too with my long rifle if we could find a 10 ft square abolitionist
-
I could do that too with my long rifle if we could find a 10 ft square abolitionist
R O F L M A O !!! ;D
-
I have always wondered about the quick twist in some of the barrels like Jaegers with a 1-28 or 30 twist Could they have been shooting conical bullets? Leonardo Deviance had a drawing of a conical bullet so they knew about them 200 years before the American Revolution. Why wouldn't they have used them? We've seen the bullets in moulds it just stands to reason they needed a scope with that added range.
-
I don't see any reason to suspect they didn't have conical bullets way back when. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that conicals preceded round ball.
-
I don't see any reason to suspect they didn't have conical bullets way back when. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that conicals preceded round ball.
The first known picture of a gun has an arrow in it. In the 1500's there is alot of mention of musket arrows. They were just looking for a better way to shoot arrows. There are many traits from earlier weapons passed on to later ones like the tiller trigger on cross bows was passed to matchlocks. Cheek wheellocks got that from cross bows as well as set triggers.
-
D.G.W. used to sell a long brass tube scope for longrifles. I don't know what specific period it would be period correct for but it I remember they advertised it as a replication of an early model scope and it was definitely for a long barreled gun. They may still have it.
I wonder if there were any in use at San Jacinto and/or other battles in the Texas revolution? If there were Hall rifles in Texas then I wouldn't be surprised to find out there were some early scopes.
Sam Houston does strike me as the type to consider deploying snipers. He and Washington both. They sort of remind me of each other, to tell you the truth.
-
That scope thing congers up several thoughts ,one is that it wasn't considered sporting to shoot officers,which they would have been doing ,The British major case in point. Many other British officers were getting hit too maybe from further away than they thought. Maybe that's why there isn't any other references to the scopes. A covert operation so to speak. Lots of maybes there.
A couple of friends of mine and I intend to try it I have a .50 cal 44" swamped barrel long rifle and a conical bullet mould and soon we're going to the 1000yd range in Columbus TX and try it out.
We went there and shot my .577 Enfield Parker hale two band awhile back. We shot at distances of 800 yards at that distance I couldn't pick out an individual but I could land one in a company size element. at 500 yards I could pick out individuals we were shooting metal rams .I don't mean to say I could hit the ram every time but 3 out of 5 maybe. That was with out a scope
-
I'd tap that powder in the .50 real good then top it off with about 25-35 grains of corn meal or grits and set that conical right on top of it, especially if it's a hollow Minnie. If I had some .50 R.E.A.L.(s) I'd give them to you but all I've got is for the .45 caliber.
I've never fired one of the Enfields. Larry had one once upon a time and I can't recall why I didn't buy it. Been several years now. I'd sure appreciate you giving me a heads-up when Yall head down to Columbus. I'd like to see how that Enfield performs. I've thought about one for a while now but am bummed out that Parker-Hale no longer makes them. >:(
I started to call you today. I might call a little later.
-
I can't quote the reference, maybe it was Lee Good, but at one time I was given to understand that some very early "telescopes" for rifles were actually just long tubes to sight through, with the effect being rather like aperture sights.
-
I can't quote the reference, maybe it was Lee Good, but at one time I was given to understand that some very early "telescopes" for rifles were actually just long tubes to sight through, with the effect being rather like aperture sights.
Sure I've seen those but they also had telescopes that they looked at the planets with too. In fact they had them along time before 1776.The long tube sights would serve to shade the sight from sun ,shadows etc. also from heat waves rising from the barrel. They used the word telescope, definition: to see at a distance, it implies optics.
If they had something that would kill a horse at 400 yards they'd need a telescope. Also you know some shooter (you know how we are) looked at a telescope and then his rifle and then back at the telescope and said Hum mm... I wonder...what if.... then he'd say ,hey honey, come here hold my beer and watch this.
-
The first match at Creedmoor had the Americans using black powder cartridge rifles and the Irish using muzzle loaders at ranges to 1000 yards with only aperture sights, although they did have elongated bullets, so missing a man and hitting a horse at 400 yards would not require optics. But if there was something to try, there was probably someone to try it. One of the problems as a rifle sight though would have been field of view, which was poor even on the early long telescopes that still exist that were designed for rifles. Still it is interesting to speculate and there may be some evidence hiding out there somewhere waiting to be found.
-
Id really like to have that Citation, not because I doubt you, but because I would like to get a copy of the original quote from the congressional record
-
Id really like to have that Citation, not because I doubt you, but because I would like to get a copy of the original quote from the congressional record
Luke,
I was curious too so I checked my copy of The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle by Ned H. Roberts. On page 35, Roberts writes the following.
"Records are available which show that the Continental Congress, in 1776, authorized the purchase of telescopic sights for rifles, but it is practically certain that these sights were not telescopic, because no records can be found to show that the telescopic sight had been invented at that time. It is probable that the sights ordered by the Continental Congress were merely tube sights, and not true telescopic sights."
In the paragraph previous to the above Roberts also writes, "We have been unable to find any positive record of the original inventor of the telescopic rifle sight, but records have been found which show that the first telescopic sights came into use on rifles in this country between 1835 and 1840."
Unfortunately, Roberts does not provide any source information for either of the above statements.
-Ron
-
Thanks Ron,
While there were not Optical sighting devices, there were for sure magnified optics during the war.........
I teach a bit about the history of scopes on Sniper rifles at the schoolhouse, so this could be some really neat info to flesh out that portion of the class
-
Good question. I have also seen the same combo bullet molds and wondered the same thing. I think 400 yards is quite a stretch, but then again they didn't have the same measuring devices we have today neither.
I once read an article in a Civil War era newspaper that advertised "Kentucky Rifles". The ad read something like; "those Kentucky rifles that can kill an abolitionist at 300 yards". Maybe there's some truth to the old long range claims after all ... (???)
Optical sighting equipment, with lenses, is a 19th century innovation and were not all that useful until after the Civil War and many of these had poor light gathering and small field of view.
The picket bullet did not come into use until the 19th century. To use these efficiently, IE any accuracy, requires equipment you are not going to see in any Rev-War dig. Nor do I know of any elongated bullets surfacing before perhaps the Mexican War or possibly Alamo era fights.
I don't see any reason to doubt the word of a skilled rifleman and military officer who was familiar with the area having passed over it several times stating that the range was 400 yards.
I don't see a problem recreating the shot either if a doubter has the time and place and a rifle with an accurate load. Shooting accurately past 120-150 requires more care in loading BTW.
Morgan's riflemen killed Frazer and wounded another high ranking officer officer at 300 yards at Saratoga.
A friend could hit a 30" gong at 500+ with his 54 flintlock once an aiming point was found.
The difference is that we don't shoot at 400 with a RB gun very often, though hitting 300 yard man silhouettes is not that tough unless the wind is high.
If using one for WAR for REAL then the rifleman might well have some experience at these distances and if he knew where to hold putting a ball within a few feet of the target is not going to be that tough. So Hanger's account is certainly believable.
If one never shoots past 50 yards a 150 yard shot can be tough. But if one shoots to this distance now and then 150 is actually an easy shot on a human sized target and can be done with small bore 36-40 caliber rifles.
In actual testing at 200 my 54 will hit a target the size of a man's head 3-4 shots out of 5.
Dan
-
Thanks Ron,
While there were not Optical sighting devices, there were for sure magnified optics during the war.........
I teach a bit about the history of scopes on Sniper rifles at the schoolhouse, so this could be some really neat info to flesh out that portion of the class
OK how do you know there weren't any optic sighting devices ? Congress appropriated money for 50 telescopic sights congress did not appropriate money for 50 tube sights. They used the would telescopic .definition: to see at a distance.It means the same thing now as it did back then. Just wondering
-
An earlier poster has requested the source for the claim that the Continental Congress appropriated funds for "telescopic sights" in 1775 or 1776 but nobody has provided it. Roberts's The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle, which seems to have provoked the original question, provides no source and actually (according to a later post) questions the notion that Congress appropriated funds for telescopic sights in our sense of the word.
Whisker's Arms Makers of Colonial America reports that David Rittenhouse was "experimenting" during the Revolution on a "telescopic rifle sight" (Whisker, 158)--this information itself derived from a historian writing in the 1970s or 1780s. If Rittenhouse was beginning to experiment during the Revolution, it seems unlikely that the technology was advanced enough for Congress to appropriate funds to purchase such sights.
I wonder if somebody confused Rittenhouse's experiments (and perhaps Congress's encouragement?) with the notion that Congress "authorized the purchase" of such sights?
Perhaps there are "records" of the sort that Roberts refers to? A quick search of the Papers of the Continental Congress, though--
available here: http://www.footnote.com/title_63/continental_congress_papers/ (http://www.footnote.com/title_63/continental_congress_papers/)
--does not come up with any document that contains the word "telescopic" or the word "scope" or "scopes."
The word "rifle" comes up 42 times, however ...
Scott
-
And we all know how good congressmen are at the clear and precise use of words. LOL.
-
And we all know how good congressmen are at the clear and precise use of words. LOL.
well back then they were ;) Now they can't say what is is
-
I have this from Smithsonian miscellaneous collections vol 129 contained in "Small arms and ammunition of the United States service''page 12 : "In 1729 it had been found that good results could be had with rifles firing oblong elliptical projectiles,and in 1742 Robbins pointed out the superiority of oval over elongated bullets. Great difficulty of loading ........prevented "extensive'' military application...'' I'll bet they could kill a horse at 400 yards. That's 32 years before 1776 allot of experimenting can go on in that time.
-
From Brooke Hindle's biography of Rittenhouse (1964): "Even Rittenhouse's private time was now [1776] taken up with problems related to military combat. He worked with [Charles Willson] Peale on two rifle improvements. One was a telescopic sight, and the other an idea of Peale's for building into the stock a box large enough to carry bullets and wipers." For these facts, Hindle refers to a diary by Charles Willson Peale in the American Philosophical Society. A more recent essay on Peale and "the Mechanical Arts" by Sidney Hart notes that in 1776 Peale "experimented in...the development of better rifles with telescopic sights for Washington's soldiers" (in New Perspectives on Charles Willson Peale [U Pittsburgh Press, 1991], 239): Hart cites the first volume of Peale's Selected Papers (Yale UP, 1988), which likely prints the diary that Hindle consulted.
Again, it seems unlikely that there were telescopic sights to be had if Rittenhouse was working with Peale to devise one, though I suppose it's possible that he was working to improve an already existing design. I strongly suspect that an earlier writer has transformed the fact that R & P were working on telescopic sights, perhaps on Washington's request, into the notion that Congress purchased some.
If the Continental Congress did indeed "purchase" 50 telescopic sights, there should be evidence to show it.
-
From Brooke Hindle's biography of Rittenhouse (1964): "Even Rittenhouse's private time was now [1776] taken up with problems related to military combat. He worked with [Charles Willson] Peale on two rifle improvements. One was a telescopic sight, and the other an idea of Peale's for building into the stock a box large enough to carry bullets and wipers." For these facts, Hindle refers to a diary by Charles Willson Peale in the American Philosophical Society. A more recent essay on Peale and "the Mechanical Arts" by Sidney Hart notes that in 1776 Peale "experimented in...the development of better rifles with telescopic sights for Washington's soldiers" (in New Perspectives on Charles Willson Peale [U Pittsburgh Press, 1991], 239): Hart cites the first volume of Peale's Selected Papers (Yale UP, 1988), which likely prints the diary that Hindle consulted.
Again, it seems unlikely that there were telescopic sights to be had if Rittenhouse was working with Peale to devise one, though I suppose it's possible that he was working to improve an already existing design. I strongly suspect that an earlier writer has transformed the fact that R & P were working on telescopic sights, perhaps on Washington's request, into the notion that Congress purchased some.
If the Continental Congress did indeed "purchase" 50 telescopic sights, there should be evidence to show it.
Good work, that puts us in the ball park we know more than we did (at least I do) You did say they were working on" improvments" not inventions right?
-
Well ... I said "I suppose its possible that he was working to improve an already existing design." But, after looking this morning at Peale's papers and the Minutes of PA's Provincial Council, I think Rittenhouse & Peale were trying to invent a new device.
September 7, 1775: "Mr Owen Biddle is desired to procure a Rifle that will carry a half pound Ball, with a telescope sight" (Colonial Records, X: 332).
January 1, 1776: "Attended Mr. Rittenhouse all Day about a Riffle with a Telescope to it" (Selected Papers of Charles Willson Peale, 1: 165).
Both these remarks seem to make it clear that there aren't any such rifles available. Notice that Biddle wasn't asked to procure a batch of rifles. He was asked to "procure a Rifle." This suggests that the Council charged Biddle with the task of finding such a thing--and so Peale and Rittenberg went to work on devising one.
Where the notion that the Continental Army purchased "50" rifles with telescopic sights originated remains mysterious.
-
Sounds like it wasn't the telescope that was so rare as that rifle firing a half pound ball,doesn't it seem they're working on the rifle with the scope as a given? Or am I missing something?
I never heard that congress paid for the 50 telescopic rifles only they appropriated money for scopes alone was the way I read it.
-
I'll bet they could kill a horse at 400 yards. That's 32 years before 1776 allot of experimenting can go on in that time.
So would a round ball and it did.
Elongated cloth patched bullets have problems with accuracy. In fact until the advent of the guide starter and the false muzzle ABOUT 1830, accuracy would have been unusable.
If this is doubted I suggest you have some moulds or swages made and try it.
Using a cloth patch it is necessary to have a short bearing surface that will allow the patch to wrap without lumps and folds. This is born out by bullets and moulds used in the 19th century.
I have a 40 caliber 48" twist barrel that I have made a swage for that makes a flat base/flat nose "picket" well under the maximum for the twist rate.
I had initially tried a radius base with a pointed nose. The bullet needs to have a FLAT BASE to shoot well at least in my experience and from looking at surviving bullets of the 1830-1880 period.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FPicketbulletsLR.jpg&hash=23c2f73c45164fd590c0056bd480ebebbe3c7a89)
I first made a simple starter that matched the bullet nose and made a loading rod with a bore sized end that matched the bullet nose and a brass ring about 10" back up the rod that was also bore size so everything was aligned with the bore. Lousy accuracy. 6-8" at 25 yards.
I finally turned the muzzle round and made one of these:
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FGuideStarter.jpg&hash=d63836be01556ba09ffc087cac8bc825f6776d87)
By using this and on recommendations from picket bullet shooters increasing the powder charge to 80 gr of ff (remember its 40 caliber) I started to get accuracy.
Then comes the problem associated with high pressure, nipple errosion, blowing the hammer to half cock.
In a flint gun made with an marginal to low quality iron barrel that is not particularly heavy you run the risk of bulging or bursting. Then there is the problem of extreme vent erosion in soft barrels. Not only is the pressure higher but its higher LONGER due to the heavier bullet.
So until someone comes up with some evidence that the elongated bullet was in something like common use prior to the percussion era I will remain unconvinced. Something like a rifle with a provision for a piston starter that can be dated to 1750 or 1776 would be interesting. But I will not hold my breath.
Its not as simple as just making a longer bullet. Making the bullet is easy. Making it work is the hard part.
The final evolution of the bullet in ML TARGET arms used paper patches. Usually consisting of 2 or 3 strips placed in grooves in the false muzzle, a steel ring placed over these to hold them then the bullet, using a piston starter that fit the false muzzle, was pressed through the muzzle the paper strips then folded around the bullet to make a patch with little or no overlap of the strips. These shot long bullet 3 calibers or more in length and were extremely accurate at long range.
The Piston starter is heavy, its hard to make so its expensive and its EASY TO DAMAGE as is a false muzzle and its related equipment. So use in the field hunting, much less in war, is not a good idea.
Some picket and slug rifles were used by snipers during the Civil War. But this is hardly daily infantry use.
Finally the large bore wall guns made for the American Army during the Rev-War were large bore (about 1") ROUND BALL rifles. Had they shot elongated bullets they would not have needed to be over 45-50 caliber.
This alone debunks the bullet rifles in the REV - War. Telescopic sights, if they were developed would likely exist in England, which has a large collection of American rifles in museums etc. Had they made any and some English rifleman like Hanger found one he surely would have taken it home with him.
The Ferguson rifle would have been a wonderful place to use a conical bullet. No patch no loading problems. It used a round ball...
The British service rifle of 1800 was a 20 bore rifle with a slow twist using a round ball. This is 60 years or so after the "oval bullet".
The American service rifles were all RB rifles until the advent to the Minie ball.
None of them had telescopic sights.
Just because someone had an idea is no indication that it was workable.
Unless there is some definitive evidence trying to place slug or picket rifles with telescopic sights in 1776 is revisionist history of the highest order.
Dan
-
I never heard that congress paid for the 50 telescopic rifles only they appropriated money for scopes alone was the way I read it.
And where did you hear this? The quotation from Roberts's The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle provided by Ky-Flinter doesn't mention anything about the quantity--50--of rifles involved. Does Roberts mention 50 rifles with telescopic sights somewhere? Or does this information about the quantity of rifles come from another source?
Sounds like it wasn't the telescope that was so rare as that rifle firing a half pound ball,doesn't it seem they're working on the rifle with the scope as a given? Or am I missing something?
No, it sounds to me like Rittenhouse was trying to develop a "Riffle with a telescope to it," likely in response to a request by the revolutionary PA government.
-
I'll bet they could kill a horse at 400 yards. That's 32 years before 1776 allot of experimenting can go on in that time.
So would a round ball and it did.
Elongated cloth patched bullets have problems with accuracy. In fact until the advent of the guide starter and the false muzzle ABOUT 1830, accuracy would have been unusable.
If this is doubted I suggest you have some moulds or swages made and try it.
Using a cloth patch it is necessary to have a short bearing surface that will allow the patch to wrap without lumps and folds. This is born out by bullets and moulds used in the 19th century.
I have a 40 caliber 48" twist barrel that I have made a swage for that makes a flat base/flat nose "picket" well under the maximum for the twist rate.
I had initially tried a radius base with a pointed nose. The bullet needs to have a FLAT BASE to shoot well at least in my experience and from looking at surviving bullets of the 1830-1880 period.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FPicketbulletsLR.jpg&hash=23c2f73c45164fd590c0056bd480ebebbe3c7a89)
I first made a simple starter that matched the bullet nose and made a loading rod with a bore sized end that matched the bullet nose and a brass ring about 10" back up the rod that was also bore size so everything was aligned with the bore. Lousy accuracy. 6-8" at 25 yards.
I finally turned the muzzle round and made one of these:
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FGuideStarter.jpg&hash=d63836be01556ba09ffc087cac8bc825f6776d87)
By using this and on recommendations from picket bullet shooters increasing the powder charge to 80 gr of ff (remember its 40 caliber) I started to get accuracy.
Then comes the problem associated with high pressure, nipple errosion, blowing the hammer to half cock.
In a flint gun made with an marginal to low quality iron barrel that is not particularly heavy you run the risk of bulging or bursting. Then there is the problem of extreme vent erosion in soft barrels. Not only is the pressure higher but its higher LONGER due to the heavier bullet.
So until someone comes up with some evidence that the elongated bullet was in something like common use prior to the percussion era I will remain unconvinced. Something like a rifle with a provision for a piston starter that can be dated to 1750 or 1776 would be interesting. But I will not hold my breath.
Its not as simple as just making a longer bullet. Making the bullet is easy. Making it work is the hard part.
The final evolution of the bullet in ML TARGET arms used paper patches. Usually consisting of 2 or 3 strips placed in grooves in the false muzzle, a steel ring placed over these to hold them then the bullet, using a piston starter that fit the false muzzle, was pressed through the muzzle the paper strips then folded around the bullet to make a patch with little or no overlap of the strips. These shot long bullet 3 calibers or more in length and were extremely accurate at long range.
The Piston starter is heavy, its hard to make so its expensive and its EASY TO DAMAGE as is a false muzzle and its related equipment. So use in the field hunting, much less in war, is not a good idea.
Some picket and slug rifles were used by snipers during the Civil War. But this is hardly daily infantry use.
Finally the large bore wall guns made for the American Army during the Rev-War were large bore (about 1") ROUND BALL rifles. Had they shot elongated bullets they would not have needed to be over 45-50 caliber.
This alone debunks the bullet rifles in the REV - War. Telescopic sights, if they were developed would likely exist in England, which has a large collection of American rifles in museums etc. Had they made any and some English rifleman like Hanger found one he surely would have taken it home with him.
The Ferguson rifle would have been a wonderful place to use a conical bullet. No patch no loading problems. It used a round ball...
The British service rifle of 1800 was a 20 bore rifle with a slow twist using a round ball. This is 60 years or so after the "oval bullet".
The American service rifles were all RB rifles until the advent to the Minie ball.
None of them had telescopic sights.
Just because someone had an idea is no indication that it was workable.
Unless there is some definitive evidence trying to place slug or picket rifles with telescopic sights in 1776 is revisionist history of the highest order.
Dan
If you read my quote #21 That's not my opinion that is a quote from on original source and I've cited chapter and verse. The original source also states that it couldn't be used extensively by the military. it didn't say it wasn't used by the military in fact it goes out of the way to indicate they did use them but that they were to slow to use in general. In fact if you read quote 21 it is differentating between different types of conicals
-
I have this from Smithsonian miscellaneous collections vol 129 contained in "Small arms and ammunition of the United States service''page 12 : "In 1729 it had been found that good results could be had with rifles firing oblong elliptical projectiles,and in 1742 Robbins pointed out the superiority of oval over elongated bullets. Great difficulty of loading ........prevented "extensive'' military application...'' I'll bet they could kill a horse at 400 yards. That's 32 years before 1776 allot of experimenting can go on in that time.
"Smithsonian miscllaneous collections" is not an "original" AKA period source. Unless you left it out, the sources for the 1729 and 1742 bits of information in the Smithsonian publication are not footnoted to period sources.
When was Volume 129 page 12 written and what were the writer's sources?
Gary
-
page 12'' In 1729 it had been found that good results could be had firing oblong elliptical projectiles'' the reference is'' Benton''(See P.S. below) that is on page 17 the quote is from'' Small Arms and ammunition in the United States service'' by Lewis Published by the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION AUGUST 14 1956 (I'm not yelling that's the way it was written in all caps)-- It says that ordinarily by means of an iron ramrod and mallet --prevented extensive military application.So we see there were military applications but it was just to slow for general adaption they tried several in later years until they hit on the Minie Also we see that in 1742Robbins pointed out the superiority of oval over elongated bullets. So your source there would be Robbins(Benjamin,New Principles of Gunnery)). Interesting he called them bullets,and they're comparing the accuracy of conical bullets. Looks like the Military wanted conical bullets but couldn't get anything that was fast enough to load until the Minie. We're not revising history we're trying to find out what really happened by looking at the facts
P.S. Benton J.G. Ordnance and gunnery U.S.M.A.
-
So here the full quotation (unsourced) from Benton, Course of Instruction in Ordnance and Gunnery (1862):
"About 1600, the rifle began to be used as a military weapon for firing spherical bullets. In 1729, it was found that good results could be attained by using oblong projectiles of elliptical form. The great difficulty, however, of loading the rifle, which was ordinarily accomplished by the blows of a mallet on a stout iron ramrod, prevented it from being generally used in regular warfare. The improvements which have been made in the last thirty years [i.e., before 1862], principally by officers of the French army, have entirely overcome this difficulty, and rifles are now almost universally used in place of smoothbored arms" (275).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z7690qlkCaEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=benton+course+of+ordnance&hl=en&ei=ml_STbaxHcfngQf
QuPzeCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=Z7690qlkCaEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=benton+course+of+ordnance&hl=en&ei=ml_STbaxHcfngQf
QuPzeCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
-------------------------
Robbins is Benjamin Robbins, New Principles of Gunnery (1742):
http://books.google.com/books?id=SYtbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=robbins+New+Principles+of+gunnery&hl=en&ei=
&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=SYtbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=robbins+New+Principles+of+gunnery&hl=en&ei=
&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
A search for "oval" or "elongated" doesn't turn up anything. The book seems largely an exercise in physics or mechanics, first describing in a long preface the invention of cannons, gunpowder, etc., and then explaining in a series of "proposition" how projectiles move in the shape of a parabola, how different results occur when one varies the weight of the bullet or the size of the barrel, etc. Here's a representative quotation: "If Bullets of the same Diameter and Density impinge on the samefold Substance with different Velocities, they will penetrate that Substance to different Depths, which will be in the duplicate Ratio of those Velocities nearly."
It's important to see what Robbins actually said, since--given the nature of the book--"superiority" (which is not a word Robbins himself uses) doesn't necessarily mean "accuracy": it could refer to distance or penetration.
So who knows what the author of Small Arms and Ammunition of the United States Service was thinking...
-
Gary, you are correct. The book he is referring to, "Small Arms and Ammunition in United States Service" by Berkeley R. Lewis was published by the Smithsonian as Vol. 129 of their Miscellaneous Collection in 1956. It is available online here:
http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27006398#page/1/mode/1up
It is a classic in it's field and heavily referred to but does have a few questionable things stated as "fact", things that we now know, almost 60 years later, to be wrong. A great deal has been learned on the subject since 1956 and Mr. Lewis would have been the first to agree.
All of that being said, we do have to look with a questioning eye at most of those period statements made by people who did not state their sources - they may not have existed even at that time.
-
If you read my quote #21 That's not my opinion that is a quote from on original source and I've cited chapter and verse. The original source also states that it couldn't be used extensively by the military. it didn't say it wasn't used by the military in fact it goes out of the way to indicate they did use them but that they were to slow to use in general. In fact if you read quote 21 it is differentating between different types of conicals
I will try this again.
And I am saying that a cloth patched elongated projectile is NOT USABLE IN THE MILITARY CONTEXT and BARELY works in hunting arms and as a result was never used as a "field" bullet due to the complexity needed to make it work. It also must be relatively short due to the necessary short bearing surface.
There are and were some HIGHLY experienced picket bullet shooters who think that Ned Roberts was in "error" in many of the things he wrote about hunting with picket bullets unless he left out a lot about how they were loaded.
Just because someone experimented with it in the 1720s in not an endorsement of its practicality.
Lots of people still shoot new and original picket rifles and frankly they are a PITA to use from the practical standpoint.
The increased pressure in a flntlock results in far faster erosion of the vent. Bevel Brothers HAVE a FL bullet gun and vent size is DIRECTLY tied to accuracy and as a result they change the erosion resistant STAINLESS vents often. An iron barrel would likely erode before a load could be worked up. Like in 20 rounds maybe even less.
In shooting at longer distances velocity variations can cause MASSIVE changes in the impact point. At BP velocities 30 to 40" of vertical dispersion at 300 yards is not only possible but assured with standard velocity variations that are "normal" in modern HV centerfires. So the variations that occur in a FL with a typical 18th century vent would be poison to any long range accuracy. And long range is the elongated bullets ONLY advantage over the standard RB.
So with the POWDER QUALITY, the IGNITION technology and the DIFFICULTY of seating the bullet, the fact that round based "picket" bullets are even harder to get to shoot. That and "eliptical" bullet would be difficult to patch since it has a longer distance from the base of the bullet to the bearing surface (unless shot "naked which brings in another set of problems).
AND bp is very finicky about how bullets are centered in the bore. Elongated bullets slump and expand on ignition (at least in percussion rifles). Unless the centerline of the bullet is inline with bore the bullet will slump off center and will be anything from "somewhat" to "wildly" inaccurate.
With this in mind we see a host of technical difficulties that were not overcome until the 1820s-30s when the patenting on the False Muzzle made bullets in MLs practical. Malleable Platinum was not even developed until the end of the 18th century (about 1800 but can't recall the exact date) though I suppose (if we want to suppose) a gold lined vent could have been used.
Is it POSSIBLE that SOMEONE used an ELONGATED bullet in the 1770s? Anything is possible, but its so unlikely that something of this sort was used as to be near fantasy. Having it in use by a significant number of riflemen on either side is quite a stretch.
I would suggest, again, that you make up some moulds and/or swages and try them in a FL rifle shooting for accuracy to 300 yards or so. If it will shoot at 50 that is.
There is a photo of a Gumph mould with 3 cavities, RB and pointed picket and a "double ball" type bullet. But I seriously doubt that the mould predates 1820 and likely dates to at least the 1840s.
Dan
-
So far you've ask me to provide documented sources and I have all you've provided is your opinion. You keep saying patched bullets and I have never seen any reference to patches of any kind. You said little bearing surfice you have no idea how much bearing surfice their bullets had ,They reffer to an oval bullet and I and you have no clue what bearing surfice that has. We also have no idea what loading tools they had developed. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean they couldn't do it, there were some pretty sharp fellows back then.
-
Excuse me while I get some popcorn! ;D
John
-
Excuse me while I get some popcorn! ;D
John
Bring me some while your up.
-
Dan, as always, very well said.
Blunderbuss, the sources you quote are questionable at best, Lewis is a good source when he refers directly to his own hands on experience with documents and collections from the Smithsonian collections but when he makes reference to undocumented period sources he may be doing exactly what you accuse Dan of doing - stating his opinions or, worse yet, the opinions of others. Don't get me wrong, "Small Arms and Ammunition in United States Service" is one of my favorite sources for reliable information and has been for almost 40 years but knowing what information therein is reliable and what is not can be tricky. If Mr. Lewis does not directly quote a verifiable source (he always does when he knows one) then cock your head and move on.
-
Dan, as always, very well said.
Blunderbuss, the sources you quote are questionable at best, Lewis is a good source when he refers directly to his own hands on experience with documents and collections from the Smithsonian collections but when he makes reference to undocumented period sources he may be doing exactly what you accuse Dan of doing - stating his opinions or, worse yet, the opinions of others. Don't get me wrong, "Small Arms and Ammunition in United States Service" is one of my favorite sources for reliable information and has been for almost 40 years but knowing what information therein is reliable and what is not can be tricky. If Mr. Lewis does not directly quote a verifiable source (he always does when he knows one) then cock your head and move on.
What Benton was saying wasn't some deep profound statement he was just saying they found the conical type bullets shot well there was a seccession of trials going on from who knows when those developers were adding to their knowledge they kept trying to get the conical bullets to load and shoot so one could use them in general.
-
Well for what it is worth, modern TC "Maxiballs" are not loaded patched or pounded down the bore and they shoot pretty darn accurately in flint rifles that are designed for them. (shallow rifling)
-
Everything in a discussion such as this depends on sources--what they really say, how later historians use them, and whether one wants to do the work to check them.
Blunderbuss, you began this discussion by stating that a source you had read stated that "congress appropriated money for 50 telescopic scopes in 1776." But, unless there is evidence that nobody has supplied in this thread, no part of this assertion was accurate.
A. The source you cited (Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle) didn't mention "50" telescopic scopes. Or did it? I've asked for the source of this figure of 50 but you haven't replied.
B. Congress seems not to have been the entity interested in these "telescopes" for rifles; it was Pennsylvania's revolutionary government that expressed interest in this technology, at least if the flurry of work by Peale and Rittenhouse is the source of this interest in telescopic sights in 1776.
C. And, finally, is there any evidence that anybody "appropriated money" for rifles with telescopic sights? Or just that they set in motion an effort to procure or invent one?
You've certainly quoted Benton accurately ("In 1729, it was found that good results could be attained by using oblong projectiles of elliptical form. The great difficulty, however, of loading the rifle, which was ordinarily accomplished by the blows of a mallet on a stout iron ramrod, prevented it from being generally used in regular warfare") but Benton provides no source for his claim; nor is he really clear about what he means to suggest.
Benton does not state that guns that used "oblong projectiles of elliptical form" were ever used in warfare. What experiments in 1729 yielded these "good results"? Did they involve actual "warfare"? Or is he just saying, basically, that while experiments showed that "oblong projectiles of elliptical form" seemed theoretically promising, these rifles couldn't be used in warfare because the problem of loading such projectiles into the rifle could not be solved?
-
Everything in a discussion such as this depends on sources--what they really say, how later historians use them, and whether one wants to do the work to check them.
Blunderbuss, you began this discussion by stating that a source you had read stated that "congress appropriated money for 50 telescopic scopes in 1776." But, unless there is evidence that nobody has supplied in this thread, no part of this assertion was accurate.
A. The source you cited (Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle) didn't mention "50" telescopic scopes. Or did it? I've asked for the source of this figure of 50 but you haven't replied.
B. Congress seems not to have been the entity interested in these "telescopes" for rifles; it was Pennsylvania's revolutionary government that expressed interest in this technology, at least if the flurry of work by Peale and Rittenhouse is the source of this interest in telescopic sights in 1776.
C. And, finally, is there any evidence that anybody "appropriated money" for rifles with telescopic sights? Or just that they set in motion an effort to procure or invent one?
You've certainly quoted Benton accurately ("In 1729, it was found that good results could be attained by using oblong projectiles of elliptical form. The great difficulty, however, of loading the rifle, which was ordinarily accomplished by the blows of a mallet on a stout iron ramrod, prevented it from being generally used in regular warfare") but Benton provides no source for this claim.
Nor does Benton state that guns that used "oblong projectiles of elliptical form" were ever used in warfare. What experiments in 1729 yielded these "good results"? Did they involve actual "warfare"? Or is he just saying, basically, that while experiments showed that "oblong projectiles of elliptical form" seemed theoretically promising, they couldn't be used in warfare because the problem of loading such projectiles into the rifle could not be solved?
I was quoting the Muzzle loading cap lock rifle on the scopes I can't remember where for sure the 50 came from I'm reading other books it may have come from I don't guess it matters the number the point was and is that there were rifle telescopes in 1775-6 I believe you cited two examples. We'll all just have to keep looking All this just shows us where we need to look
-
the point was and is that there were rifle telescopes in 1775-6 I believe you cited two examples.
No. I believe the two instances I cited suggest that there were not workable rifle telescopes in 1775-76. This is how mistaken information gets perpetuated.
The two instances I cited (Peale and Rittenhouse working on the problem) indicate that there was interest in obtaining the technology. These instances certainly don't show that the technology existed.
-
both say they were working on rifles, with telescopes attached
-
Yes, they were working on rifles with telescopes attached....
But that is like saying that I am working on a time travel device, or a cure for AIDS, or a health care plan that covers everybody at a negligible cost. I'm working on it because it doesn't yet exist ...
As Dan wrote a while back, "just because someone had an idea is no indication that it was workable."
-
Well ... I said "I suppose its possible that he was working to improve an already existing design." But, after looking this morning at Peale's papers and the Minutes of PA's Provincial Council, I think Rittenhouse & Peale were trying to invent a new device.
September 7, 1775: "Mr Owen Biddle is desired to procure a Rifle that will carry a half pound Ball, with a telescope sight" (Colonial Records, X: 332).
January 1, 1776: "Attended Mr. Rittenhouse all Day about a Riffle with a Telescope to it" (Selected Papers of Charles Willson Peale, 1: 165).
Both these remarks seem to make it clear that there aren't any such rifles available. Notice that Biddle wasn't asked to procure a batch of rifles. He was asked to "procure a Rifle." This suggests that the Council charged Biddle with the task of finding such a thing--and so Peale and Rittenberg went to work on devising one.
Where the notion that the Continental Army purchased "50" rifles with telescopic sights originated remains mysterious.
The subject in both descriptions is the rifle I mean if you diagram the sentences." with a telescope" is a prepositional phrase
-
For the fun of it:
http://www.hi-luxoptics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37&Itemid=52
-
The subject in both descriptions is the rifle I mean if you diagram the sentences." with a telescope" is a prepositional phrase
Do you think your sentences and grammar could be held to the standard you apply here? Peale's diary shouldn't be, either.
But, anyway, the fact that the "subject" in the descriptions is "rifle" and the words "telescope sight" appear only in a phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there existed such a rifle or whether they are talking about a desired object that doesn't yet exist. That is: yes, in both sentences the "subject" is the rifle and in both sentences the type of rifle is modified by the phrase "telescope sight." But so what? All that tells you is what kind of rifle they are discussing. It doesn't add any information about whether this is something they could get at the corner store or had only just begun to dream of.
But just be sensible and consider the first sentence. If such a rifle existed, why would Biddle be directed to procure only one? It's obvious that the PA Council is asking him to bring them something that, heretofore, they haven't seen. Biddle's attempt to "procure" this special rifle seems to have involved enlisting Rittenhouse, who then set to work trying to devise this technology that they want so badly.
And consider the second sentence. Peale says he "attended" Rittenhouse all day "about" a rifle, etc. Does this sound like they have the rifle in hand? Or that Peale was helping Rittenhouse with something ... with something that Rittenhouse was trying to invent, perhaps?
I'll end by noting that the very text you began this discussion by quoting (in a part you didn't quote), even after noting the (erroneous) possibility that Congress authorized the purchase of rifles with telescopic sights, stated that ""We have been unable to find any positive record of the original inventor of the telescopic rifle sight, but records have been found which show that the first telescopic sights came into use on rifles in this country between 1835 and 1840."
Do you have any evidence to contradict this? Or does your belief in the existence in 1776 of a rifle with a telescopic sight depend on ignoring the plain sense of a sentence by means of a dubious grammatical analysis?
-
according to the two references you produced one in 1775 and one in 1776 there were telescopes and in both instances they were working on rifles to put them on, That's the subject right? Your ignoring your own evidence. By the way until you produced those I had no real idea scopes existed. ,except to say what was printed in the ML Cap lock rifle.which hasn't been authenticated .My original statement was more of a question than a statement. You know something we could all work on ,that's what a forum is. So they did have scopes in 1775 and 76 even if they're working on them.
-
Well if this is all you have been suggesting, I think we're all in agreement. They were working on how to put telescope sights on a rifle. But they hadn't solved the problem of how to do this.
But: when you say "there were telescopes and ... they were working on rifles to put them on," it sounds like you mean that they were just building a routine rifle and, once that was built, they could just mount the "telescope sight" and problem solved. The evidence, as I read it, suggests that is incorrect. I don't think these quotations indicate at all, that is, that "they had scopes" for rifles and Rittenhouse was just fitting them on to a rifle.
Rittenhouse was one of the greatest scientists and inventors of his day. And an astronomer: he built the first telescope in America and it was used to observe the important Transit of Venus in 1768 or 1769. Rittenhouse took up this problem in 1776, clearly, because if anyone could adapt the telescope to a rifle, he would be the guy.
But these quotations indicate that he was trying to solve the problem. Not that he had completed a "scope" that could be fitted on the rifle and was just waiting for a rifle to be made to which he could harness the scope.
There's no evidence from the subsequent months or years that he successfully figured the problem out, delivered a prototype, etc. Or that anybody actually used or saw a rifle with a telescopic sight. What these quotations do prove--the only thing they prove (as I read them)--is that they conceived of the idea in 1775 and 1776 and tried to realize it in practice. Anything more, I'd say, is reading into the quotations what they don't say.
-
This is interesting to say the least .If there were just one reference ,but there are two and different people in different years and only in one colony. To me that means we're not seeing the very first scopes.
-
Another case of "if they hada they coulda or woulda" but there are no academic proof's. We ned chapter and verse, otherwise just conjecture. Like the recently discovered compression fire starter, that was used in the eastern Pacific, but not here. just the thing TV shows will turn into history.
Bill
-
To discover something like this one has to have conjecture first and then find the proof. I just went through something like this with a particularly stubborn bunch or re-enactors here in Texas concerning the use of percussion caps in the Texas Revolution. If you notice in the Billy Bob Thornton Alamo movie there were no percussion guns. We had studied some and knew the nature of man is to equip himself with the best he could fine,any advantage. Our opposition claimed there were percussion caps in the USA but where would one find them in Texas? Basically that was their argument. Well we got up a forum of sorts and pooled our knowledge and study and were supprised to find that it was the flintlocks that were in the minority. ( Civilian wise) We may also have a lead as to some of the "Common rifles" from New Orleans first assumed to be flint now could have been percussion. When the information started coming in it came in fast,as we were working together.
-
Conjecture marked as conjecture--and with persuasive reasoning behind it--is one thing.
But conjecture that ignores established facts seems more like a desire to have something be true rather than a desire to discover the truth. I would suggest with respect that the stubbornness, in this case, lies with whomever is so determined to insist on a particular truth that he distorts relatively straightforward statements to make them mean the opposite of what they say.
These two quotations from September 1775 and January 1776 demonstrate that a group of connected individuals were, together, conceiving of the possibility of a rifle with a telescopic sight. The incidents described in these two quotations are related, an order ("procure x) and a response ("working on x). I'm not honestly sure what you mean by "different people in different years and only in one colony," but these quotations display the opposite of "people all over were thinking about telescopic sights so they must have existed." It shows, instead, a small group of people in one place at one time working to solve a problem.
I suspect everybody who reads this agrees that forums such as this are an excellent way to work together to share information. The information from 1775 and 1776 that I shared points to the conclusion that telescopic sights, while desired, weren't possible yet for Rittenhouse and his crew.
If there is evidence that they surmounted whatever challenges they faced, share away!
-
Or reads that they had scopes and still denies their existence.
-
Well for what it is worth, modern TC "Maxiballs" are not loaded patched or pounded down the bore and they shoot pretty darn accurately in flint rifles that are designed for them. (shallow rifling)
They also were never used in ML arms until they were invented for reasons I believe I already enumerated circa 1970.
Bullets of this type have several serious problems when used in the field. IE the are a sliding fit in the bore and are difficult to keep on the powder. They do nothing to seal the bore from moisture. The original Maxi produced dismal results as a hunting bullet, it seldom expands from all accounts and I have read accounts of people shooting deer the next year after being shot side to side through the chest with a 45 Maxi. So the "Maxi-Hunter" was invented.
A friend told me a meeting a hunter in the woods with a Maxi that was protruding from the bore a driving band and a grease groove.
As a reference this is why the American Army never had a minie ball cavalry carbine. The would not stay loaded if slung as was the standard for cavalry at the time. But then neither would any of the MLs unless loaded with a patched ball. The SB guns loaded with a paper cartridge would unload themselves in 5-10 miles.
See "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".
As a result the American Civil War saw almost all Union Cavalry units with breechloaders of one sort or another.
For these reasons the "naked bullet" was seldom if ever used in MLS in civilian hands until well into the cartridge era (so far as I know) and then only for target use. These "naked" bullets were virtually identical to cartridge bullets of the time. So far as I can tell these were used by Schuetzen and other target shooters. Some such bullets are shown, along with the more common "picket" in "The American Percussion Schuetzen Rifle".
There are a few in Robert's book as well but its difficult to date the stuff..
Dan
-
Or reads that they had scopes and still denies their existence.
There is far more to this than making a tube with lenses (have you ever looked through some the 1870s scopes?) and the cross hairs. This is EASY.
The mounts are the hard part.
There were quite few Sharps shipped with scopes in the 1877 era. But very few survive since they were so fragile. But there is documentation in shipping records and journals etc showing that they were in use. The same is true of the Civil War. There is none of this for the Rev-War or even the War of 1812.
I have been involved with old guns for almost 50 years now, studying, shooting, making and researching.
This discussion is the first inkling I have ever heard of scope sighted firearms in the 18th century.
The telescopic sight, the false muzzle and the practical elongated bullet all seem to appear at about the same time. Chapmen in "Instructions to Young Marksmen" 1848 does not give a time when they were invented but shows drawings of rifles with scopes and drawings of the mounts. But the elongated bullet with heavy charges stretched the effective range of the target rifle to 1000 yards.
It is interesting to note that of the large bore flintlock rifles used as wall guns at the time of the American Revolution (See RCA #139 for one example) that survive SFAIK none have a provision for a scope and no provision for a peep sight. Though since the rear sight of this 90 caliber rifle is missing and there is no photo of the muzzle end so we do not know what it had for sights.
While there are period descriptions of these heavy rifles there is no mention of telescopic sights and since they are virtually unknown it seems someone would have mentioned it.
They did shoot well enough to 400 yards or more to make a telescopic sight desirable there is no evidence in contemporary accounts of any such sight.
But as "cool" as this might seem there needs to be some account of someone using a rifle with a telescopic sight in the 18th Century in America.
Dan
-
Or reads that they had scopes .....
See, now there's an unambiguous misreading.
If on September 7, 1775, Pennsylvania's revolutionary government directed "Mr Owen Biddle ... to procure a Rifle that will carry a half pound Ball, with a telescope sight," they evidently didn't "have" the scope. I would have thought it was to obvious to even mention that they wouldn't ask him to "procure" something that they already "had."
The second quotation (as well as the point Dan made: there would likely be evidence of somebody seeing/using these special rifles had they been achieved) makes it clear that Biddle couldn't simply contact gunsmiths in Lancaster or Philadelphia to "procure" this desired item. Rittenhouse had to start working on the problem.
I'll just add, to anticipate a reply, that in English we use the same word for:
"bring me a loaf of bread" [where the object is readily available],
"bring me Osama Bin Laden" [where the object exists but is difficult to obtain], and
"bring me a cure for AIDS" [where the object asked for is not yet in existence]
The language of the quotation cannot tell us which of these the PA Council meant. The surrounding evidence does.
Actually, the most significant evidence is that they ask him to bring them a rifle, not 50 of them. This is why the mis-statement with which you began this thread is so significant. Evidence that somebody asked for "50" such rifles would indeed suggest that they were a readily-available commodity. But there's no evidence that anybody asked for "50" such rifles. Instead, they told Biddle to bring them one--and so Rittenhouse (also a member of the Council) tried to make one that would satisfy the Council.
-
My June American Rifleman came today and it has an article by John Barsness on the history of telescopic sights.
About 3 paragraphs down we find.
"Issac Newton is usually credited with being the first to fit a telescopic sight to a firearm, sometime in the early 1700s"
But this still does not mean it was practical. The surviving rifles just do not show any signs of telescopes being in anything like common use before the 1830-40s.
By the 1850s there were firms producing telescopic sights, but these did not become a virtual standard until the 1960s or even later. Many rifles made in the 1950s had no provision for a scope.
I will admit that the heavy wall/ships rifle in RCA with the large rear dovetail is enticing, causing me to speculate on what the dovetail might have been used for.
If the rifle were captured on the battlefield the user could have destroyed the scope (if it had one) prior to its capture to prevent its use by the British.
But this is all speculation of the highest order since I have no idea what provisions there are for a front sight on this rifle.
But I did find the Newton information, if its correct, to be interesting.
It does give people here a place to look and a reason for people who might have read Newton's writings to look into telescopic sights.
Dan
-
In looking through Chapman's "Improved American Rifle"
we find he states (in 1848) that "telescopes have been in use for sometime". Then goes on to point out how bad the mounts were and the problems they produced.
This is pages 51-55.
I assume the Chapman really had no idea when the scope was invented.
Dan
-
You can bet they would have been top secret a thing like that would have given who ever had it a tremendous advantage. Agreed they wouldn't have been in general use quite rare overall I'd reckon. Still if Newton was trying it in the early 1700's and they were still at in 1776 looks like they would have had some success,I mean they're still improving them
-
This thread has been an interesting read. It reminds me of Mark Twain's comment on science "...one gets such large returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact" John
-
I think for the most part it's been an interesting thread. Lots of good research accomplished here. To be honest, I haven't researched any of it but I do have the gut feeling that it is NOT beyond Washington to have figured out a way to use some sort of telescopic sight. Washington was a land surveyor and an involved thinker. It would not be unlike him to picture in his mind a surveyor's scope or similar item on top of a rifle and motivate some young hawkeyed troop to give it a try.
Documentation to prove / disprove this is more than likely available somewhere just yearning to be found someday. The absence of such documentation by no means proves definitively that such a high-tech marriage didn't exist. I think most of us are broader minded than that. ;)
One thing I will agree on 100%; any such use of a scope by Colonial troops would have indeed been one of our best-kept secrets, and we all know how Washington felt about classified information, to include the use of clandestine operatives and tactical diversions. Along with being the biggest and most successful bootlegger in American history, he was quite the military adversary to deal with. ;D
-
The absence of such documentation by no means proves definitively that such a high-tech marriage didn't exist.
Agreed: as some historian said, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
-
Here's something interesting see William Gascoigne 1612-1644 Wikipedia English put cross hairs on his telescopes to tell the center. I don't mean to say he mounted it on a weapon but any astronomer like Newton would have know this. Only meaning that part of the technology was there.
-
Here's something interesting see William Gascoigne 1612-1644 Wikipedia English put cross hairs on his telescopes to tell the center. I don't mean to say he mounted it on a weapon but any astronomer like Newton would have know this. Only meaning that part of the technology was there.
I agree. My point exactly ... The technology was there and the idea itself really can't be that hard to come by.
-
Here's something interesting see William Gascoigne 1612-1644 Wikipedia English put cross hairs on his telescopes to tell the center. I don't mean to say he mounted it on a weapon but any astronomer like Newton would have know this. Only meaning that part of the technology was there.
I agree. My point exactly ... The technology was there and the idea itself really can't be that hard to come by.
Its fun to kick around ideas and think about things.
However.
While its really easy to put in cross hairs in a telescope as I stated before this was the easy part.
ALL the technology was NOT there even by the 1800 much less 1644. IE a USABLE set of mounts. These were not really in evidence until the 1840s +- maybe 5-10 years.
They MUST be adjustable and they must be adjustable WITHOUT bending the tube. Unless we want to suppose they had internal adjustments too.
Making a set of mounts that will maintain zero on a rifle is not all that easy. It takes pretty precise fitting and the rigidity needed to maintain a zero is not all that easy, at least not at the time.
Also the scopes were small diameter to control the weight. Too much weight, too much inertia, mounts fail. So the tubes of the early scopes are 3/4. The lenses even smaller and the light gathering and field of view of a 1860s-1870s scope was abysmal my even 1920 standards.
So while they had the telescopes they probably left a lot to be desired. The mounts are another matter and it took some time to make a mounting platform he worked even in the early industrial revolution.
They did not become somewhat common and there is no written reference to them prior to the 1840 period.
If their had been any significant number of these they would have been noticed by the riflemen in the British Army. If Hanger had heard of it or seen scope sights I cannot imagine him not mentioning it. He wrote books about shooting after all and stated he had examined "many hundreds" of American rifles.
But if there is a mention I have not seen it or heard of it.
If they perfected it why did not the men who's writings started this thread WRITE about it. Secrecy was not taken very seriously at the time so I can't imagine it being "classified". Anything used on the battlefield is not secret for very long.
If it were going to be done I would see it as some "look what I did" show off guild masterpiece in Germany or other European country.
While lack of documentation does not prove something did not exist. No documentation or evidence means its suppostion. There is no mention or evidence for the existence of a telescopic sight in use in America in the 18th century. If someone read Newton (and people DID read and if educated were actually educated) and Newton had mentioned it I can see where the interest came in.
Putting it into actual practice?
Dan
-
My argument throughout this thread has been that the idea wasn't the hard part--and the recent additional information about Newton, Gascoigne, etc., reconfirms that. They obviously had the idea in 1775 when the PA Council sets Biddle off to find/invent such a thing.
The technology, from what we know, though, wasn't there--if by "there" we mean the capacity to actually produce telescopic sights for rifles that would work in practice. Like many scientific or technological projects, this was a problem that people were working on. As I've said above, the fact that Rittenhouse was recruited to work on it suggests that people thought it was a difficult problem to solve indeed.
While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to assert that there were in existence functioning telescopic sights one needs some evidence. Certainly the absence of evidence is not proof of presence, either!! Coupled with that, the evidence we do have from 1775/1776 indicates clearly that those in Pennsylvania interested in telescopic sights did not have the technology problem solved. And that is evidence of absence.
-
I think it's been interesting reading as well, however from the start, I questioned the Need for a telescopic scope, as the accuracy range of the rifles just wasn't that far.
True, there were shots taken, and sometimes made at extended ranges, but that was the exception and not the norm.
Even if you had a scope on your rifle and could see a target better at 400 yards, that doesn't mean that the rifle could consistently shoot to that point of aim every time, or maybe even most of the time.
And even if the scoped rifle was a National Top Secret, nothing stays secret forever. At some point the Brits would have seen the gun, captured the gun, or at least written about the gun and complained about the uncouth tactics of the rebels for using such a thing.
So, an interesting read, but to me, the chance of a scoped rifle being used in the rev war is just about zero.
John
-
JTR's post made me wonder about what is maybe an obvious question but one that I hadn't thought to consider.
Does the "dream" of a telescopic sight for rifles indicate that rifles could shoot further than individuals could accurately see?
That is, why would one waste time on a telescopic sight (which they clearly wanted in 1775/1776) if one could see as far as the rifle could shoot without one?
Scott
-
Hanger did mention a rifle and if I'm reading it right was a super flat shooting rifle In fact he was afraid of the technology getting out so he cut the barrel in two and threw one half over one side of a bridge and the other half over the other side. I have the entire footnote quote it's rather lengthy and written in English I mean real English some what hard to understand If someone wants email me and I'll send the quote back as I don't know how to put it up here
-
Some information that has been missing in this thread is the expertise of David Rittenhouse (1732-1796). David was a mathematical and mechanical genius and self taught no less. He was the professor of astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania and a scientific instument and clock maker. One of his famous clocks with an orrary is on display in the Main building at Drexel University. His clock making and metal working abilities were certainly sufficient to build a working telescopic sight if he had been able. Some websites that add information are: http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelcollection/decorativearts.asp and http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/rittenhouse_david.html.
Martin Keen
-
Some information that has been missing in this thread is the expertise of David Rittenhouse (1732-1796). David was a mathematical and mechanical genius and self taught no less. He was the professor of astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania and a scientific instument and clock maker. One of his famous clocks with an orrary is on display in the Main building at Drexel University. His clock making and metal working abilities were certainly sufficient to build a working telescopic sight if he had been able. Some websites that add information are: http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelcollection/decorativearts.asp and http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/rittenhouse_david.html.
Martin Keen
Sure Martin there were adjustments on the telescopes they had already and they already knew how to grind the lenses,and we found they had cross hairs so they weren't just looking down range through an open view.mounting it to a rifle was all that was left and for an intelligent man like Rittenhouse from what I've read about him that would have been a piece of cake.
-
My argument throughout this thread has been that the idea wasn't the hard part--and the recent additional information about Newton, Gascoigne, etc., reconfirms that. They obviously had the idea in 1775 when the PA Council sets Biddle off to find/invent such a thing.
The technology, from what we know, though, wasn't there--if by "there" we mean the capacity to actually produce telescopic sights for rifles that would work in practice. Like many scientific or technological projects, this was a problem that people were working on. As I've said above, the fact that Rittenhouse was recruited to work on it suggests that people thought it was a difficult problem to solve indeed.
While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to assert that there were in existence functioning telescopic sights one needs some evidence. Certainly the absence of evidence is not proof of presence, either!! Coupled with that, the evidence we do have from 1775/1776 indicates clearly that those in Pennsylvania interested in telescopic sights did not have the technology problem solved. And that is evidence of absence.
I think we have people who have never tried to make a set of scope mounts that actually work.
Nor have they, in all likelyhood, ever looked through an old scope. Its not as easy as they think to make a scope that has light gathering, field of view and mounts that make it usable so that it shoots to the same point from shot to shot. Undetectable variations can result in serious changes in impact down range.
But for reasons of their own they really want a Rev-War era scope.
The brass tube scopes that Navy Arms and some others have sold are much better than some of the scopes of the past in terms of brightness and field of view. For one thing the vintage scopes, I am talking 1870s decades into known scope development here, have the objective lens several inches back inside a 3/4 tube I don't know why but its a fact they were often fairly high powered 10 power or more.
Then they don't understand that the small tube is an attempt to keep the lenses small and so the weight down because of limitations in the mounts limiting the amount of inertia they will tolerate.
Dan
-
Hanger did mention a rifle and if I'm reading it right was a super flat shooting rifle In fact he was afraid of the technology getting out so he cut the barrel in two and threw one half over one side of a bridge and the other half over the other side. I have the entire footnote quote it's rather lengthy and written in English I mean real English some what hard to understand If someone wants email me and I'll send the quote back as I don't know how to put it up here
Unless he hunted down and killed the guy the built it cutting up a gun and throwing in the river is not an effective way to prevent the spread of the technology.
I would really like to read this if you can find the citation.
My point is that when scopes actually came into use they turn up in all sorts of places, newspaper articles, books on shooting etc etc. But there is a complete lack of mentions during the 18th century.
This would have been big news and someone would have mentioned it.
Dan
-
....... For one thing the vintage scopes, I am talking 1870s decades into known scope development here, have the objective lens several inches back inside a 3/4 tube I don't know why but its a fact they were often fairly high powered 10 power or more. Then they don't understand that the small tube is an attempt to keep the lenses small and so the weight down because of limitations in the mounts limiting the amount of inertia they will tolerate.
Dan
The lens were set back in the tube more than likely to reduce the glare both on the lens and off the lens, as well as to protect from rain, snow, etc., We all know that scopes will fog and that lens sparkle can be seen from a distance. If you're a sniper, then you wouldn't want your position compromised because your target saw the glare from your lens and therefore decided to scram or get the jump on taking the first shot (I'm referencing mainly the story and known facts of the hunt and killing of the NVA "COBRA" sniper during the Vietnam war).
Personally I don't have any interests in ever mounting a scope on one of my weapons. I've never used a scope ever and don't plan on it. I do however find it interesting and as much believeable the there were some sort of enhanced optics utilized by the Continental Army and militias during our Revolutionary War, nor would it surprise me to learn the British had the same inclinations.
-
Sniping and light reflection was not a factor with the early scopes. Since there was no sniping going on as far as I know when they were being developed.
Scopes were typically longer than the barrel and its entirely possible the lenses were installed at the point needed to make the scope actually work the long tube being used with a mount in the front dovetail.
Scope sighted sniper rifles are not documented until the American Civil War.
Here we have not only documentation we have surviving rifles of the time.
If they were using optical sights on rifles during the American Revolution or even The War of 1812 it would have been remarkable enough to cause SOME MENTION by SOMEONE.
So far as we know there is nothing of the sort.
Nor is there any mention of anyone being shot past 300-400 yards by a rifleman which can be done with the sights in common use at the time and the round ball rifle. Even then then SIGHTS are not the limiting factor is RANGE ESTIMATION and BULLET DROP which even with a 1870s BPCR shooting heavy bullets and 100 grains of powder is extreme at 300 yards by current standards.
So until there is SOME mention from the TIME by someone who WITNESSED the use of an optical sight during the American Revolution its simply speculation. In fact its WILD speculation without a single sentence to indicate that anything of the sort was ever used.
It is beyond my comprehension that this has taken up as much space as it has.
Dan
-
Blunderbus wanted this email posted so I am doing it for him. Sorry but you will have to discuss what its for and where it originated with him.
Dennis
Hello,
Your quote is from "Colonel George Hanger, to All Sportsmen, and Particularly to Farmers, and Gamekeepers" (London: Printed for the Author, 1814). It's from a lengthy footnote pp205-9.
At three hundred yards the gun I speak of was tried in the following manner. The target was a board, two feet broad, and only three feet high. The bull's eye in the centre. I shot *down wind*, on the sands of the sea, at low water, lying down on a horsecloth on my belly. I had a lump of wood before me, on which was placed my hat, to rest the gun on. I imagine the whole height, to the crown of the hat, was about two feet from the ground. This, of course, gave to the muzzle of the gun, three or four inches *depression*, so that my gun, at some distance beyond the target, must have pointed into the sands. However, notwithstanding this, I found that the ball, when it passed on one side of the target, never struck the sands, under full sixty yards beyond the target. Now, provided my gun had been laid in a direct horizontal level, to the centre of the bull's eye, or had had the muzzle of it two or three inches *elevated*, instead of being *depressed*, (I speak to experienced riflemen,) would my sun not have been entitled to throw the ball *considerably further* before it struck the sands? -- Now, supposing I had shot at a target, at three hundred yards distant, which had been the height of a man, say five feet ten inches high, and, instead of aiming at the bull's eye, I had aimed at the top of the target, the same as at the top of the head of the figure of a man, am I not entitled to say, that my ball would either have struck *the breast* of that figure, or had passed by on one side of the target, and full as high as the breast of a man; and that it would not hae struck the sands, which lay on a direct level with the bottom of the target until it had reached a distance considerably above four hundred yards? I detest theory, but speaking to experienced riflemen, I do assert that this is not theory, but that it *is plain demonstration*, founded on the truest principles of the knowledge and system of projectiles.
I desire it may be understood, that the gun, the various merits of which I have described in this short treatise, entitled "*A Plan for the formation of a Corps which never has been raised as yet in any army in Europe, &c. &c. &c." is not the common rifle I speak of , which should be used with effect at long distances, before an enemy; but a gun, very far superior, from its distinct and various qualities as it is described to possess. The barrel of that gun, I sawed in half, and threw the one half over Westminster bridge, on one side, and the other half on the other. There, and in my breast, the construction of such a gun lies.
The footnote continues on for another couple of pages, but discussing other things. ** are italics in the original. (And I typed this quickish, so excuse typos.)
Btw, if you're interested in this comment, you might want to dig up a copy of the book, since about a third of it weaves around firearms of various shorts, military and sporting. Unlike George's memoirs, this one has been reprinted as recently as the 1970s. When I picked up my copy a few years back, I recall it being fairly cheap.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Marg B. <bantarleton@yahoo.com>
Banastre Tarleton website:
http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/_entry.html
(Same locale as ever, but now minus the redirector)
-
;D Well I second Dan, and I only posted one short response!
However it has been a good thread, interesting, a bit provocative, but without a shread of proof.
Again, given the relatively short range of rifle accuracy then, why even the need for a scope?
As for the super flat shooting barrel that was cut in two and pitched off a bridge, well, I'm not going to hold my breath for that one either. Read some of the Sharps rifle testimonials from the 1870s for similar proclamations.
Flat trajectory or rainbow trajectory is simply question of power pushing the projectile verses projectile weight, air resistance and gravity. No miracles, then nor now.
You guys can keep at it as long as you like, but I'll be quite now, and continue to consider the odds at about zero. ;D
John
-
;D Well I second Dan, and I only posted one short response!
However it has been a good thread, interesting, a bit provocative, but without a shread of proof.
Again, given the relatively short range of rifle accuracy then, why even the need for a scope?
As for the super flat shooting barrel that was cut in two and pitched off a bridge, well, I'm not going to hold my breath for that one either. Read some of the Sharps rifle testimonials from the 1870s for similar proclamations.
Flat trajectory or rainbow trajectory is simply question of power pushing the projectile verses projectile weight, air resistance and gravity. No miracles, then nor now.
You guys can keep at it as long as you like, but I'll be quite now, and continue to consider the odds at about zero. ;D I think above 400 yards one would need a scope
John
-
Blunderbuss,
That's what I'm saying, that at ranges like 400 yards the rifle won't be accurate enough to even warrant the use of a scope.
At that range, I doubt it'd be able to hit a barn door sized target consistantly, so what's the point of a scope?
John
-
It is beyond my comprehension that this has taken up as much space as it has.
Dan
Dan. You posted 11 long responses to this string...........
So?
Dan
-
Goodness some of y'all wanted documented proof one fellow even quoted Hanger to me and wrote it in red. So here out out of Hanger's mouth ,how much more documented can one get? he says:It's not the common rifle I speak of,that can be used at long range before the enemy....but a gun very far superior. I'm working on where he obtained this gun as my pulmonary findings are that it was from an improved American rifle. Then he says 400 yards and beyond then he destroyed the barrel so we know the secret is in the barrel
-
I agree: SO?
What's surprising about the amount of space this thread has taken up isn't the number of words but the fact that, despite explicit evidence to the contrary (not speculation), some posters continue to suggest not only that a telescopic sight during the American Revolution was conceivable (which it obviously was) but that it was actually being used but kept secret! It is not true that there's not "a shred of proof" about this matter. Two reports from 1775/1776 reveal clearly that PA's revolutionary government did not have a rifle with a telescopic sight that they wanted.
One cannot base a claim on this sort of argument: since things can be kept secret, and any telescopic sight would have been important technology, no evidence about it would have survived even if the technology had been in use. We have two pieces of evidence where people talk quite freely about the desire to obtain the technology. There is no justification whatsoever for imagining that, had they accomplished it, they wouldn't have talked similarly about it.
Vast amounts of personal (not meant to be public) papers survive from military and civilian leaders, including Washington, Rittenhouse, etc. They communicated the most confidential or top secret matters through letters that survived. As Dphariss noted, some trace of its use--by those who used it or those who it was used against--would have survived.
I still would like to hear about why a telescopic sight was thought desirable if the rifle itself couldn't shoot accurately as far as the sight could see.
Scott
-
Blunderbuss:
The quotation from Colonel George Hanger, to All Sportsmen, and Particularly to Farmers, and Gamekeepers (1814) is very interesting. But:
A. When did he conduct this experiment? 1814 is 40 years after 1775/1776.
B. What, precisely, is the improvement he made to this rifle to make it "superior"? I cannot tell from the quotation what modifications he made. He doesn't mention any special sight, does he?
C. Is he talking about a single prototype used experimentally? Or some rifle that was actually in production?
-
I'm working on that. I ordered one of his books and have a couple of undocumented statements,I'm running down one says it was a bullet similar to an Express bullet winged conical which would answer why he destroyed the barrel (the secret was in the barrel). and for the flatter trajectory Another says he he got the rifle design from an improved American rifle. The more questions I answer the more I find. Why would he destroy the barrel ?
I know it says ball but they called Minie's balls too,and he may have been keeping that to himself also
-
Goodness some of y'all wanted documented proof one fellow even quoted Hanger to me and wrote it in red. So here out out of Hanger's mouth ,how much more documented can one get? he says:It's not the common rifle I speak of,that can be used at long range before the enemy....but a gun very far superior. I'm working on where he obtained this gun as my pulmonary findings are that it was from an improved American rifle. Then he says 400 yards and beyond then he destroyed the barrel so we know the secret is in the barrel
I'm sorry but the Hanger quote is gibberish, it apparently indicates the rifle is able to defy physics "depressing the muzzle"? For a long range shot?? Or Hanger was incapable of explaining it properly. In any case this one page of writing coupled with his statement that British Light Infantry chased Morgan's Riflemen for miles has pretty well destroyed my faith in Hanger as a source. I was somewhat concerned about using him as a source after reading the Morgan story, which is unsubstantiated, but this thing on the "super rifle" takes the cake. Why did he not take it to the British Army?
Destroying the barrel, he says, also prevents anyone who actually knew how to test firearms proving the whole passage is complete BS.
I base this on
1. The surviving rifles of the time.
2. The writings of the time.
3. Extensive personal experience.
There is no mention of optics of any kind BTW.
After looking into his lifestyle and habits I am starting to believe that Hanger's reputation as one of the foremost riflemen in England was something he wrote himself and then has been passed on by people quoting Hanger... I found his bio and some other information in looking for quotes from his writings as research on this thread.
http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/friends/hanger.html
http://www.silverwhistle.co.uk/lobsters/ban.html
There was no documents describing a "super rifle" other than the large bore wall rifles previously mentioned, there is no mention of any special sighting equipment. No documentation for scopes, no surviving examples means there is no evidence that such a sight was ever in use in 18th century America. I would point out that as far as I know there are no examples of such things in the various royal and private collections in Europe either. No documentation, no surviving specimens means there is no evidence. No evidence means they did not exist, its all supposition.
"Secrets"?
How do would you keep this secret? Would you kill the man that made the scope? Did Hanger kill the guy that made the "super rifle" ::)
Maybe like the BAR it was so important that they would not even use it in combat for fear the enemy would get the technology . As a result of this stupidity the BAR was not used in Europe in WW-I where is was SORELY needed.
It was thought to be too secret and effective to risk in combat ::)
Dan
-
I looked up Benjamin Robins "New Principles of Gunnery'1742 Http://chest of books.com reference/American-cyclopedia-10/rifle.HTML wow did this guy have it going on. He knew about ''gaining twist'' and regular rifling said it made no difference ,(how long did it take us to figure that out?) mentions breech loaders and progressive depth rifling and the difference between rifling's in breech loaders and muzzleloaders. also mentions oval bullets. Here's the clue on Hanger's rifle " If the barrel be rifled and the ball so made that the projections on it's surface precisely fit the grooves of the rifling the ball in passing through the barrel must receive the motion of rotation about the axis of rotation will then nearly or quite coincide with the tangent to the trajectory during it's flight the sources of deviation above mentioned (above he described a smoothbore musket and the bounce of the ball down the barrel)will be removed." OK remember earlier I mentioned an Express bullet? An express bullet has "projections" You need to see this site its awesome what this guy knew about ballistics and etc.,and in 1742
So what we've learned on this thread is that Newton first put a telescope to a rifle and then in 1775 and 1776 brilliant men were working on them and that in 1742 they not only knew about rifling but different twist for round and conical balls.They even had the cross hair thing worked out.I even learned that you can write in red on this forum I had no idea.
-
I looked up Benjamin Robins "New Principles of Gunnery'1742 Http://chest of books.com reference/American-cyclopedia-10/rifle.HTML wow did this guy have it going on. He knew about ''gaining twist'' and regular rifling said it made no difference ,(how long did it take us to figure that out?) mentions breech loaders and progressive depth rifling and the difference between rifling's in breech loaders and muzzleloaders. also mentions oval bullets. Here's the clue on Hanger's rifle " If the barrel be rifled and the ball so made that the projections on it's surface precisely fit the grooves of the rifling the ball in passing through the barrel must receive the motion of rotation about the axis of rotation will then nearly or quite coincide with the tangent to the trajectory during it's flight the sources of deviation above mentioned (above he described a smoothbore musket and the bounce of the ball down the barrel)will be removed." OK remember earlier I mentioned an Express bullet? An express bullet has "projections" You need to see this site its awesome what this guy knew about ballistics and etc.,and in 1742
So what we've learned on this thread is that Newton first put a telescope to a rifle and then in 1775 and 1776 brilliant men were working on them and that in 1742 they not only knew about rifling but different twist for round and conical balls.They even had the cross hair thing worked out.I even learned that you can write in red on this forum I had no idea.
Belted ball rifles did not work any differently than rifles with normal rifling (aside from allowing ridiculously fast twists in RB rifles) and many at the time, 19th century, thought it was a poor idea. The British "Brunswick" percussion service rifle used a belted ball.
The belted ball did not get "popular" until the British tightened the twist so far that heavy rifles could not use more than relatively small charges powder without stripping.
So they used the belt to hold the rifling. Again some experienced riflemen and hunters thought the fast twist and belt were at best unnecessary and at worse it was detrimental to general use. But of course the gunmakers, who did not use the rifles in the FIELD, thought the fast twist was great. This resulted in a great much big game under resorting to using smooth bores since the ranges were usually short. Others argued the makers into slower twist or found someone who used them to build a rifle.
If we want to go there we could talk about the rifles with octagonal, pentagonal, square, diamond and heart shaped bores. They all exist, especially, in Germany, probably in masterpiece rifles.
But the generally run guns had typical rifling but the Germans also liked fast twists and in general the American rifles out performed them.
There is an EXCELLENT chance that the rifle Hanger "tested" simply had a slow twist.
Given his "scientific approach" its impossible to know what it was.
I could tell you why gain twists were popular and many serious gunmakers found them to shoot better (Harry Pope used a gain) but don't see the point. Properly done gains STILL shoot extremely well with bullet or ball and they are still in production. Back in the day, with somewhat cruder rifling machines they had a very real advantage at least with the 1830s "picket" and bullet rifles.
BUT they are difficult to "fresh" or even lap though it can be done, I am told. These did not really become common until the advent of the Picket/Sugarloaf bullet developed about 1830.
By about this time the belted bullet was also in use in Britain. Experiments with various "naked" bullets were also ongoing but while I am sure there was experimentation prior to this. But theory and experimentation does not indicate ACTUAL USE any more than his drawings prove that he flew a helicopter or drove a tank.
It took a VERY long time to make these viable since they required other technology to make them viable.
Once rifling was invented I am SURE all sorts of things were tried. Bu with the AVAILABLE technology the ROUND BALL and OPEN SIGHTS remained the norm until about the third decade of the 19th century.
It was not until then that the TECHNOLOGY advanced to the point that telescopic sights and ACCURATE elongated bullets were practical for use and even then they were generally specialty items used mostly by "rifle cranks" searching for ultimate accuracy. By the advent of the Civil War the heavy "slug gun" rifles were so accurate that it was after WW-I before cartridge guns began to catch up.
So while Da Vinci thought of the helicopter we did not find people flying around 13th & 14th century battlefields in helicopter gunships.
So unless you can find some USE of long-range "super rifles" with telescopic sights you are simply trying to put 19th and 20th century technology into the mid 18th century through supposition.
Dan
-
The Isaac Newton reference, too, seems to be shoddy. Every source I've found says the same thing that the Barsness article recently said: "Issac Newton is usually credited with being the first to fit a telescopic sight to a firearm, sometime in the early 1700s." But nobody bothers to explore whether he should be credited with this: each subsequent writer just repeats the same vague phrase ("is usually credited with").
I would wager that, simply because Newton was an expert in optics, some later writer imagined that (if anybody) he would have imagined a telescopic sight and subsequent writers repeated the tall tale.
The DaVinci point is excellent: one wouldn't claim, would one, that the fact that DaVinci drew a "flying machine" in 1490 that it was in existence at the time? On the contrary: his many drawings about flight testify to exactly what could not be achieved--but could be dreamed of--at that moment.
-
Although I'm no expert on rifling speeds, after reading various articles on gain-twist rifling, I've always been left with the impression that any benefit (if any) realized by gain-twist rifling was mostly learned after conicals became more popular. I've never been convinced that PRB(s) benefitted all that much from gain-twist rifling speeds.
-
They argue gain twist even today but if one was better you'd be able to prove it, so as Robins said in 1746 there isn't a difference and at the time they only used gain twist on small pistols. I need a copy of Robins book "new Principles of gunnery" They discussed twist of different shaped bullets in muzzle loaders and breech loaders. I still think that the fast twist in some Jaegers is due to the fact they may have been shooting conicals.
-
They argue gain twist even today but if one was better you'd be able to prove it, so as Robins said in 1746 there isn't a difference and at the time they only used gain twist on small pistols. I need a copy of Robins book "new Principles of gunnery" They discussed twist of different shaped bullets in muzzle loaders and breech loaders. I still think that the fast twist in some Jaegers is due to the fact they may have been shooting conicals.
That's what I was saying I think any benefit of the gain-twist rifling was mostly realized with conicals. I also agree however that conicals were more common earlier than a lot of folks tend to believe.
And again ... same goes for percussion ignition. I think percussions were gaining in popularity faster and sooner than what seems to be traditionally believed. I cannot wholeheartedly agree with the theory that only flintlocks were used at the Alamo. ???
-
They argue gain twist even today but if one was better you'd be able to prove it, so as Robins said in 1746 there isn't a difference and at the time they only used gain twist on small pistols. I need a copy of Robins book "new Principles of gunnery" They discussed twist of different shaped bullets in muzzle loaders and breech loaders. I still think that the fast twist in some Jaegers is due to the fact they may have been shooting conicals.
It would be an interesting conversation on rifling twists, if we had some common frame of reference.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR CONICALS DURING THE TIME FRAME OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OR EVEN WAR OF 1812? I don't mean stuff people experimented with or wrote about but that the average person knew about and used.
THERE IS NONE. What someone might "think" is of no consequence.
THE GERMANS AND THE BRITISH SHOT LIGHT POWDER CHARGES IN THESE FAST TWIST RIFLES with patched round balls NOT CONICALS.
THIS IS DOCUMENTED. This is one reason the German riflemen imported by the British were often outshot by the Americans they were supposed to counter.
But of course you would have to read things that shoot holes in your suppositions to learn this.
So its easier to suppose that this or that is so. This then allows you to suppose even more things.
Soon we have people flying Da Vinci's helicopters....
Dan
-
They argue gain twist even today but if one was better you'd be able to prove it, so as Robins said in 1746 there isn't a difference and at the time they only used gain twist on small pistols. I need a copy of Robins book "new Principles of gunnery" They discussed twist of different shaped bullets in muzzle loaders and breech loaders. I still think that the fast twist in some Jaegers is due to the fact they may have been shooting conicals.
That's what I was saying I think any benefit of the gain-twist rifling was mostly realized with conicals. I also agree however that conicals were more common earlier than a lot of folks tend to believe.
And again ... same goes for percussion ignition. I think percussions were gaining in popularity faster and sooner than what seems to be traditionally believed. I cannot wholeheartedly agree with the theory that only flintlocks were used at the Alamo. ???
Percussion guns swept the flintlock away in England rapidly. IN SHOTGUNS.
Rifles converted much slower according to Nigel George in "English Guns and Rifles".
Some of us that have spent time considering it think that the early percussion systems and/or caps were likely less consistent. This was not a significant factor in shotguns where the faster ignition greatly aided WING SHOOTING. The "sporting" idle rich/royalty/landed gentry who did most if not all the wing shooting wasted no time either buying new percussion guns or converting their flint guns. But inconsistent ignition will wreck havoc on rifle accuracy and this could be the reason rifles lagged somewhat.
But this is supposition. However, today "magnum" caps cause accuracy problems with BP loads. Great with grey powders.
But we have flintlock rifles in widespread use and still in production in 1840s American. Sure people were using percussion rifles & guns and some adopted it early. But we have documents that indicate that in the WEST the flint rifle hung on. It was proven technology.
Even though there were hardware stores stocking percussion caps by the millions in the mid-late 1830s the fur companies were still ordering flintlock rifles.
We have patent dates for percussion ignition and a host of guns with various early percussion ignition systems that are pretty well dated. Many English guns were serial numbered and can be dated by this in some cases.
There were so many breech loading flintlocks in England in the 1750s and before that were virtually identical to the Ferguson that some have wondered what Ferguson invented. (IIRC it was notches in the threads of the rotating breech piece to reduce powder fouling jamming the screw). But these, including the Ferguson, shot ROUND BALLS from all accounts.
The "conical" is not well documented until the advent of the picket bullet and as previously stated the picket requires more complex equipment to shoot accurately. Reminds me, there is a Picket Rifle match on the 4th of June, I need to swage some more bullets and cut some patches. They have to be round and just the right size to work right with the starter.
It was circa 1850 before the military, despite considerable experimentation starting in the early 19th century, SFAIK, perfected the minie ball for infantry use. Naked bullets, as previously stated, are essentially useless for anything but military and target use. General civilian use of either is not very common. Pickets WERE common by the 1830s-40s, the bullets Colt Perc, revolvers shot were very much like a pointed picket bullet. But picket rifles INVARIABLY are made to accept a starter or false Muzzle. Without one or the other of these the picket just does not work. This is evident in writings of the time and current experience.
With all the cased sets of various sorts of firearms in England and elsewhere there would be some elongated bullets or moulds showing up if conicals were in use in the 18th century. The field of firearms has a great wealth of surviving firearms from the 18th century, both here and in Europe.
Folks really need to do more RESEARCH and less supposition.
Don't matter how much you want something. In the realm of history no proof means its did not exist. Its not as though some time traveler went back to the Battle of Breeds Hill with several gallons of maxi-balls, a box full of TC "Hawkens", 100000 caps, 100 pounds of Pyrodex and started a revolution in ballistics.
No elongated bullets in the written or archeological record, no surviving moulds or bullets in cased sets and so no proof.
Conclusion? No "conicals" IN USE before 1820 until proof surfaces to the contrary.
Dan
-
Is the scope mount the hard part? Consider the fact that optical devices (telescopes, binoculars, etc.) are today relatively sturdy devices but in the 18th Century they were fragile. A good solid whack would damage them, throwing the lenses out of alignment. Now, while the recoil of a muzzleloading longrifle is not at all severe by modern standards repeated jolts, even mild ones, could throw the lenses out of whack making the telescope useless. This is one reason why the telescopic sight for rifles was an expensive and scarce item until relatively recent times.
-
From what I've found out about the scopes Newton made they were non adjustable .Set to one point of impact
-
What did you find out about the scopes that Newton made?
-
Just said that they were not adjustable and he was applying the principles he learned in his other telescopes. Sounds like he was making them for customer
-
where did you find this information?
-
Here's a site I can't open sounds interesting it's:
Real Reader viewer
Pennsylvania News 2009'' The history of the rifle scope goes way back before Galileo''
As for the part about Newton I just Googled Newton riflescope and read through some of them
I'll get back with you later I'm headed to a fish fry and cold beer
I Googled Isaac Newton rifle scopes then found "Apparatuses and Methods for mounting an optical device to an object"Van kirk,RobertJ Then go down to 'Back ground of invention ' ...experimented extensively for distant shooting....a form of unadjustable telescope sight permanently mounted to the barrel of the gun. Originally following the efforts of Sir Isaac Newton ...the gun barrel had affixed..a form of telescope...to what ever range the customer wanted.
-
I saw the same source before writing my post: it's the one that says merely that "It is reported that Sir Isaac Newton was the first person to put a telescope on a gun with which he is said to have experimented extensively for distant shooting." So it is relying on (and repeating) a tall tale without any evidence for it.
Here's the next quotation in this account:
"Over the years, it appears that roughly three general phases have evolved and co-existed for firearm scopes. These stages were telescope sights with no adjustment, telescope sights with external adjustment and telescope sights with internal adjustment. Originally, following the efforts of Sir Isaac Newton, the gun barrel had affixed permanently to it a form of telescope which was initially adjusted so as to be 'zeroed' to whatever range the customer wanted. If the marksman were to shoot at any other range, he would have to aim the firearm off of the target or bulls eye in some fashion to compensate."
Please note that this account says nothing whatsoever about when the experiments "following" Newton, experiments that affixed the telescope to the gun barrel, occurred. 1750? 1850?
Again, all the legend about Newton reveals is that people recognized that a rifle with a telescopic sight would be valuable technology. And any experiments that may have taken place in the early, middle, or late eighteenth century were exactly that: experiments to see if the dream could be make workable. The information we have from 1775/1776 reveal that this technology was still unavailable (and still sought after).
-
When I do research I first have to find someone that said "Newton experimented extensively for distance shooting ...with a telescope mounted to the barrel of the gun" Then I further look at books which contain that info like the book that quote (the one I sent you) came from'' Apparatuses and method's for mounting an optical device to an object'' by Van Kirk,Roberts Then I assume the man is not lying about the quote but mearly failed to mention his source and then I look for his source. You said ''tall tale''so you assume the man for some reason is lying ,being that negative can never be productive.
-
On the contrary, being skeptical about commonplace claims is what sends you back to original sources and enables new discoveries.
It's not worth being "productive" with shoddy evidence--like saying it would be a "piece of cake" for Rittenhouse to invent a telescopic sight for a rifle when all the evidence suggests he hadn't.
When all the mentions of Newton's telescopic sight are admittedly unsourced ("it is reported that..."), I'm skeptical. You can call that negative. Better would be to find reliable information or admit to yourself you're repeating a tall tale. I am happy to learn new things and will welcome new information about Newton's invention if you turn it up.
But citing something on the web that just repeats other unsourced claims doesn't really add anything reliable, does it?
-
First I have to hear the unsorced claims before I can find the sourced Now that makes sense doesn't it.
-
Sure, that makes sense. But posting the information as fact when the source you took it from has no citations (and just repeats the same info as elsewhere available on the web, all unsourced) doesn't (in my opinion) make sense.
-
Let me clear it up for you as I have explained before this is a forum there are other people who haven't heard any of this not even the unfounded part. Some out there may want to further this study and add to it ,instead of calling it fables and other negative input. There may be people out there that have a line on the books mentioned which could show us the original text.
To condemn something out of hand as Jagers shooting conicals when the book" New principles for Gunnery" states the rate of twist "For Conicals" at around 1-28 give or take and that just happens to be what many Jaegers have in them,coincidence? Right now that's just an idea like this whole thing started out read my opening statement and notice that it has a question mark behind it. But maybe question marks didn't mean the same thing back then like prepositions and subjects that seems to be in question by some.
-
I don't know anything about "conicals" so haven't said one word about them.
As I mentioned, skepticism about information isn't unproductive or negative. It actually produces new research, such as the information about the "telescope sights" desired by the PA Council in 1775 and worked on by Rittenhouse in 1776. Did you know about that before your initial post? I didn't. So I'm not sure who doesn't want to "further this study and add to it ,instead of calling it fables and other negative input." If people hadn't been "negative" and questioned your original posting, I guess we'd still be trusting that congress appropriated money for 50 scopes, no?
Providing inaccurate information does nobody any good. It gets repeated way too often and then gets relied on later as "fact."
-
Let me clear it up for you as I have explained before this is a forum there are other people who haven't heard any of this not even the unfounded part. Some out there may want to further this study and add to it ,instead of calling it fables and other negative input. There may be people out there that have a line on the books mentioned which could show us the original text.
To condemn something out of hand as Jagers shooting conicals when the book" New principles for Gunnery" states the rate of twist "For Conicals" at around 1-28 give or take and that just happens to be what many Jaegers have in them,coincidence? Right now that's just an idea like this whole thing started out read my opening statement and notice that it has a question mark behind it. But maybe question marks didn't mean the same thing back then like prepositions and subjects that seems to be in question by some.
One can also shoot conicals from 72" twists, Minies anyway which fly like darts. 72" was the standard for the Springfield Rifle Musket. I had a 450 BPE double rifle that had a 40" twist. It would shoot bullets to 350 grains or more very well at hunting ranges.
Twist is irrelevant as "proof" of the use of a conical unless you can come up with a conical of the period.
The British over twisted rifles for quite a long time because they would then shoot very well with a ROUND BALL and a dram or two of powder. Nice target rifles. Useless for hunting though.
James Forsythe describes this.
Some Gunsmiths thought that the rifling had to make a turn in the barrel to shoot well. So if the barrel was 26" long it needed a 26" twist, if it had a 36" barrel it needed a 36" twist. Note the barrel length on many German Jaegers, also note that a lot of English makers used German barrels. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROJECTILE.
EXCEPT that many also thought that the larger the ball the faster the twist needed to be. This is EXACTLY opposite for ball OR conical especially if you want to shoot high velocity with a cloth patch. But a great many rifles were made using these principles. So we have a LOT of round ball rifles of various calibers with twists in the 30" range. It has nothing to do with conicals it has to do with people making rifles who really did not understand the proper twist rate for ANY projectile. This was long before any tests to find a twist for a given bullet length. 28" in a 50 caliber will stabilize a bullet around 3 calibers long. In a 45 it will only handle a bullet about 2 calibers and properly stabilize it.
Many picket rifles that gave exceptional accuracy at 200 had twists in the 36" range.
Now look at the rifling FORM and depth. Now look at the Minie ball rifling form and depth.
Yes you can shoot cloth patched conicals from round ball form rifling. BUT cloth patched conicals are VERY difficult to start straight. Start them just little off and accuracy if gone. So we need the Guide/piston starter and/or false muzzle. The false muzzle was patented in 1840. Naked bullets can be shot from MLs with no added equipment if properly designed, but they don't care for deep rifling as used for cloth patched projectiles. They also are known to not stay on the powder. So all the conicals have some Achille's heel. If they use cloth patched conicals they need a precision equipment to start them. Equipment that was not invented until well into the 19th century. I have shot picket bullets with no starter and its hopeless. I have shot naked cylindrical bullets in MLs with no starter, just slide them down on the powder. They will slide around in the bore pretty easily. But they shoot very well.
Did the fast twists work for RBs? Sure, the rifles shot well. But the powder charge was often so light that the point blank range is 50 yards or less. Making the rifle practically useless for hunting. The large bore guns were useless as hunting guns because they lacked the velocity to give adequate penetration on Asian and African heavy game. So the belted ball was adopted. The British Army adopted the belted ball for their service rifle and it was almost useless. The flintlock Baker service rifle with its slow twist gave good service (it was adopted in 1800 and shot a 20 to 22 to the pound RB). The faster twist belted ball percussion "Brunswick" was not very effective. And fast twist or not it shot a BALL with a belt not a bullet. It was nearly impossible to load. One comment from the "Select Committee on Small Arms 1852" was that it required so much force to load that it must "render any mans hand unsteady for accurate shooting". It had a 30" barrel with one turn in the length of the barrel BTW. Just like some Jaegers and English rifles.
In Small Arms of the World pg 32 we find " In the year 1789 on J. Wilkinson in English description No. 1694 described a barrel rifled with 2 spiral grooves, the missiles to have belts or wings..." I have not idea he describes elongated bullets or not.
If the conical was so well known why, in the 1820s, was Delvigne using a round ball to develop a fast loading military rifle? He was pounding a round ball against a rebate in the breech to expand it to grip the rifling.
Further experiments in France produced the Thouvenin system (based on pounding a bullet on a post set in the breech this time) and finally the Minie.
The INTERESTING part is that Minie was granted 20000 pounds by the British Gov't. But W. Greener claims he had put the idea before the British Army 12 years before and was told it was unworkable. 13 years before this a Captain Norton had suggested the same thing. So what does this exactly mean to the "conical" in the 18th century theory? Greener finally was paid 1000 pounds. But who invented the Minie? Greener claimed Minie read his book... Greener may have learned from Norton. But the trail goes dead here it seems. But even with the 25 years mentioned here we are still well within the 19th century.
If they were shooting conical they had to make bullets. Where are the bullet moulds for these 18th century conicals? Where are the surviving conical bullets? Where is the descriptions of people using them?
There is an account in "Wah To Yah and the Taos Trail" by Garrard of a Hawken shooting a bullet an inch long.
If they were all that common why would be write of it?
Every known Hawken has a 48" twist and this twist, in theory, will shoot bullets 2 calibers long 1" or so in 50-54 calibers. My picket I shoot in the 48 twist 40 is about .750" long and weighs a 135 grains.
Bottom line. Rifling twist is not a marker for conical use. Now if you find an 1840s rifle turned at the muzzle with a twist of 36 to 48 “ or a gain ending between 30 and 48” then you have a picket rifle. The turned muzzle is a marker for picket use. A 36” twist will work well form most RB rifles under 50 caliber so its not “proof” that a conical was used.
Its not that conicals were unknown. In the 200 year or so since the rifle was devloped I am sure a lot of things were tried by 1740, its not that they could not cut the twist needed, or make a mould. Its that there is no evidence that they were in use before the early 19th century. The Britisb Army dismissed as useless the conical Greener showed them sometime about 1835 +-. This indicates it was unproven and did not work. The British had been looking for rifles for military service since about 1740. But there is no evidence I know of that indicates they were testing conicals and they did some testing before adopting the 62 caliber RB firing Baker. But there are no elongated bullets mentioned SFAIK.
Is there often confusion on terminology. Yes. Do we know everything about shooting in the 17th and 18th century? Of course not. But there are surviving rifles and bullet moulds proving the use of round balls. Even shot towers for making musket balls by the 1790s or so. I suspect that a lot of the musket balls fired in the Napoleonic wars were dropped not cast.
So show us a surviving bullet mould with a makers name predating 1790. Show us some surviving bullets with iron clad provenance. Show us some archaeological evidence of bullets or a mould dug from some site that was unused after 1780. Show us a drawing dated to 1776.
Show us something. All you have right now ranks as supposition.
For example. The electric car was invented in 1835 but there were no electric cars at Lincoln's inauguration. There were over 1000 in 1900. But they were not practical and even now are barely so. They died out with the coming of the Model T.
Just because someone wrote about it or even made some is not a indicator of practical use.
Dan
-
There's an article in this month's issue of American Rifleman magazine that discusses scope. It does mention the possibility of Sir Issac Newton attaching a telescope onto a rifle.
As another poster mentioned, David Rittenhouse did attach a telescope onto a rifle gun for militia Lt. Charles Wilson Peale. I've read it in the papers of Charles Wilson Peale. Peale apparently got smacked in the eye by it (didn't know about cheek weld) as he had springs fabricated to prevent it. "Making a piece with springs to prevet the Eye being hurt by the the Gun." See Lillian B. Miller, The Selected Papers of Charles Willson Peale and His Family, Vol. 1, published by Yale Univ. Press.
-
There's an article in this month's issue of American Rifleman magazine that discusses scope. It does mention the possibility of Sir Issac Newton attaching a telescope onto a rifle.
As another poster mentioned, David Rittenhouse did attach a telescope onto a rifle gun for militia Lt. Charles Wilson Peale. I've read it in the papers of Charles Wilson Peale. Peale apparently got smacked in the eye by it (didn't know about cheek weld) as he had springs fabricated to prevent it. "Making a piece with springs to prevet the Eye being hurt by the the Gun." See Lillian B. Miller, The Selected Papers of Charles Willson Peale and His Family, Vol. 1, published by Yale Univ. Press.
Interesting.
Eye relief can still be a problem.
Is there s date for this scope?
Dan
-
I hadn't read forward enough in Peale's diary when I posted the earlier citation from Peale's diary about attending Rittenhouse about the "Riffle with a Tellescope to it." Here's, from what I can tell, the full sequence of entries regarding their collaboration:
Jan 1, 1776: "Attended Mr. Rittenhouse about a Riffle with a Tellescope to it."
Jan 3, 1776: "Bought a Gun Lock....I found it faulty...."
Jan 5, 1776: "A Set of Loop to hang up a Gun 6/6. spent in attending & working about my Riffle. threatened to complain to the Committee of Henry ---- who had taken an extortionate price for the Gun Lock."
Jan 6, 1776: "attended the main stockg. sd. Gun"
Jan 8, 1776: "still attendg about my Gun"
Jan 9, 1776: "pd: for stockg my Riffle 22/6 to Mr. Williss"
Jan 10, 1776: "attend Mr. Palmer & Mr. Rittenhouse and sd. G-n"
Jan 11, 1776: "pd. Mr. Palmer for a Riffle Barrell" & "Bullet moulds"..."finished the Riffle this Morng: Shot her afternoon in the Stadt House yard, not quite Sighted, pd. for Grinding 4 Raisers 2/8"
Jan 12, 1776: "attended Mr. Bordely this Morng: put a sight to my Gun"
Jan 13, 1776: "paid Joseph (Mr. Rittenhouse's Journeyman) for makg Box, Loops, &c for my Riffle.... finish a Charger to load with. go out with Mr. Rittenhouse to shoot, the Brich Box opened & I lost all my Bullets & wiper"
Feb. 5, 1776: "spent in Trying to sight my Riffle"
Feb 6, 1776: "Ditto"
Feb 7, 1776: "Ditto"
Feb 8, 1776: "Ditto"
Feb 9, 1776: "making piece with springs to prevent the Eye being hurt by the kicking of the Gun"
Feb 10, 1776: "Ditto"
Feb 11, 1776: "Ditto"
Feb 16, 1776: "shooting the Riffle"
Feb 17, 1776: "put sight of Silver to Mr. Ramsey's Riffle"
March 1, 1776: "went to see Mr. Rittenhouse who tells me he has often heard Rifflemen say, that when they shot large loads, they could never shoot true, if so, Mr. Rittenhouse accounts for it in his Manner, that the air suddenly pressed rogether till it can not go closer, the Ball glances off in another direction, as in the instance of Lightning flying so very crucked, which goes strait in a Vacuum"
I don't think there's anything more about the rifle after this.
Peale was also involved in gunpowder and saltpeter production, and he & Rittenhouse often went to view/inspect warships.
All the above quotations are in Selected Papers of Charles Willson Peale (Yale UP, 1983), 165-72.
-
There's an article in this month's issue of American Rifleman magazine that discusses scope. It does mention the possibility of Sir Issac Newton attaching a telescope onto a rifle.
As another poster mentioned, David Rittenhouse did attach a telescope onto a rifle gun for militia Lt. Charles Wilson Peale. I've read it in the papers of Charles Wilson Peale. Peale apparently got smacked in the eye by it (didn't know about cheek weld) as he had springs fabricated to prevent it. "Making a piece with springs to prevet the Eye being hurt by the the Gun." See Lillian B. Miller, The Selected Papers of Charles Willson Peale and His Family, Vol. 1, published by Yale Univ. Press.
Neat Militia Lt. with a scope. Hummm
-
Couple more things from Peale's diary. Seems he had been working on an improved rifle even before the issue of the "Tellescope Sight" came into the picture.
A. This from October 19, 1775:
"Mr. S:Bordly Tels me that a Riffle fit for a Battle ought to carry at least an Oz Ball the Barrel not to exceed 3 feet 8 inches to have 9 Riffles"
Two days later he "got Mr. Bordely to Shoot the Riffle, this Gentleman has been famous for shooting with Bows & Arrows, he told me that he had shot 17 Squerrils in 18 shots with his Bow & Arrow at one time. that at another time he had killed 29 Squirrils in 30 shoot with a Riffle"
B. Regarding the accuracy of eighteenth-century riflemen, Peale reported on August 29, 1775 (from Annapolis): "One of [the British] Captains who went to Relieve gard was shot at by three of our Riffle men at 250 yards distance & tumbled from his horse, this is a practice which General Washington now discountenances."
-
Blunderbuss, this is the same Charles Willson Peale we were discussing earlier, who was working with Rittenhouse, so the larger picture--Pennsylvanians were working to develop a rifle with telescopic sights--is precisely the same as it was before.
The real news in all these details, it seems to me, is that it was Peale rather than Rittenhouse who was working so diligently on the invention.
What Dan said a few posts back still seems to me a good summation of what we've learned. There's no evidence that this prototype led even to a second rifle with a telescopic sight at this time.
-
If you read Gary's post it mentions a Militia Lt. (now we'll study him) that one was made for and the one that was mentioned in 1775 that's three. We've learned allot here first it was thought that there weren't any scopes in 1776 now we have three and they were functional ,sure they were having problems with them we still do. Curious is his statement about the ball hitting the air and deflecting it.These guys aren't dummies how do you think they will handle the ball thing?
-
Blunderbuss, this is all the same rifle: Charles Willson Peale is the militia lieutenant; he is working with Rittenhouse on this rifle with a telescopic sight in 1776. As far as we know, there is one rifle with a telescopic sight being devised in 1776, in response to a single query from the PA Council. I'm not saying this isn't significant. I am saying that you're mistaken in counting to three here.
And you're creating a straw man here when you say that "first it was thought that there weren't any scopes in 1776." Nobody has contended this, at least that I've read. From the earliest posts here we "learned" that Rittenhouse & Peale were working on this project.
What I've seen posters reject is your contention that these telescopic sights were actually being used beyond the experiment phase: i.e., in your repeated claim (at the start) that "Congress appropriated money for 50 telescopic sights congress did not appropriate money for 50 tube sights." Dan's point throughout has been that it's easy to imagine and work on a project; it's hard to solve it and this one was not solved to the extent that rifles with telescopic sights were produced for or used in combat.
If there's evidence to the contrary, please share.
-
I have been following this post with great interest. Very enjoyable and educational. Thank you all.
Spgordon, your last post is on the money, as your others have been. Thank you.
My thoughts on Peale's diary entry of Oct 19, 1775: Peale notes Mr. Bordly's opinion's on the minimum specifications for a "Riffle fit for a Battle", but that doesn't prove that Peales rifle was made as such. What really stood out to me was the statement that two days later Peale "got Mr. Bordely to Shoot the Riffle....". Peale didn't get Bordly to shoot just any rifle, no, he stated "the rifle". I agree this would seem to indicate a rifle special in some way, that Peale was familiar with, and perhaps working on, hence calling it "the rifle". I think Peale was not so much interested in seeing how well Bordly could shoot, but what Bordly, a noted marksman, could get "the riffle" to do.
Hopefully an even earlier entry will describe "the rifle". At this point, with no mention of it's sighting arrangement in the October 1775 entries, we cannot attribute it having a telescopic sight.
-Ron
-
Quick follow-up, after reading around a bit more in Peale's diary and some other sources:
Peale was not a lieutenant in any militia when he was working on this rifle. He "entered as a Common Soldier in Capn. Peters Company of the Militia" only on August 9, 1776 (Selected Papers, 192).
-
spgordon - it was years ago when I had access to a copy of the book. But Peale may well have enlisted as a private officer, but things be as they were back then, he may have finished as a lieutenant. I recall there was an image in the book showing a miniature painting of Peale wearing a sash (and only sergeants and officers wore them). Feel free to correct me as I'm relying on fading memory (and dying brain cells) and don't have a copy in front of me.
-
Gary -- Yes, Peale was elected lieutenant later, in October 1776. My only point (by way of response to blunderbuss) is that, when Peale was experimenting with Rittenhouse with that rifle, he wasn't yet a militia officer. That is, the case was not (as blunderbuss, I think, wanted to see it as) that a military officer had this rifle with a telescopic sight. Peale wasn't enlisted in any military capacity at the time.
Not a particularly crucial point, true. More important is that all these instances relate to the same experimental rifle that one individual Peale, with the help of Rittenhouse and a few others, was working on in late 1775 and early 1776.
-- Scott
-
The comments about the ball being deflected by the air compressed in front of it is classic 18th century guess work ballistics that is actually 100% wrong since most rifles will shoot better with heavy loads than light.
If Peale was shooting a one ounce ball the recoil could easily be the problem with sighting the gun.
Making a scope at that time that would tolerate the recoil would be a serious challenge and this could be why sighting the rifle took so much work the scope may not have been stable. Or the scope was not easily adjustable. Or both.
I have a one ounce rifle and it can make a lot of recoil with useful loads. I do not think that the people at the time fully understood the violence of the recoil forces on things attached to firearms.
While they do shoot better at longer ranges the rifle is harder to shoot accurately and it requires a good stock design to make it tolerable for the shooter. The weight to be carried is something else to consider.
If we consider J.J. Henry's 70 rounds in his pouch and his 49 caliber rifle vs the one ounce ball there is a significant weight difference plus needing more powder to shoot them. This should be considered if traveling a long distance and Henry did enroute to Quebec.
Dan
-
1" bore rifles are generally wall guns and aren't really infantry small arms. I doubt if Peale had an elephant gun built for himself.
BTW, there's an American Rev. War wall gun in the Royal Amouries (Brits captured it darn it) but I'm happy to report that the Army West Point Museum has one it its collection.
-
1" bore rifles are generally wall guns and aren't really infantry small arms. I doubt if Peale had an elephant gun built for himself.
BTW, there's an American Rev. War wall gun in the Royal Amouries (Brits captured it darn it) but I'm happy to report that the Army West Point Museum has one it its collection.
1 OUNCE. 16 to the pound. This is a .662 ball diameter. A 1 inch ball is about 4 to the pound. 1700 grains by weight +-.
""Mr. S:Bordly Tels me that a Riffle fit for a Battle ought to carry at least an Oz Ball the Barrel not to exceed 3 feet 8 inches to have 9 Riffles""
I wonder if Bordly dealt in lead ;D
Dan
-
Subsequent to the last post in this thread, the following article was published that some may find interesting:
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/charles-willson-peales-riffle-with-a-tellescope-to-it/
Here’s the conclusion:
“The diary does not provide us with all that we would want obviously. However, some observations and deductions can be made without going too far out on a limb. As Peale spent two entire days (January 1st and 2nd, 1776) consulting with the telescope and instrument maker David Rittenhouse about a telescopic sight it seems reasonable to believe that a great deal of thought went into the project. On January 10, Peale was back in consultation with Rittenhouse and the gunsmith, Mr. Palmer. History was made on the afternoon of January 11, 1776 when Peale shot his new rifle, probably the first ever to have been equipped with a telescopic sight, for the first time “in the Stadt House yard.” The “Stadt House” of course is the State House in Philadelphia; now known as Independence Hall.
The January 13 entry seems to indicate special work was done as Peale paid Rittenhouse’s Journeyman for making “box, loops” which may mean a patch box of some sort and sight rings to attach the telescopic sight to the rifle barrel. The fact that the box opened and the bullets and wiper fell out does not seem significant except in frustration to the shooters.
It is interesting that he spent February 5, 6, 7, and 8 “trying to sight my Riffle.” It is not hard to visualize Peale struggling to make adjustments to the telescopic sight and find the load of powder that would give the best accuracy. Doubtless, there was much trial and error, and frustration involved. On the 9th, Peale works on a spring arrangement for the telescopic sight so it would not impact his eye on firing. This gives us a picture of a telescope with very short eye relief which required the eye to be close, too close, to the end of the scope. Upon recoil the scope would hit Peale in the eye.
On February 16th, he is back firing again and then on the 19th he “shot several times in a small piece of Papier at 100 yds.” Success. He shoots again on the 27th. On the 29th he talks over his load with Rittenhouse, receives an opinion about heavy loads, and shoots the rifle for the last recorded time on March 2.
The flintlock rifle with a telescopic sight was a reality. It may not have been practical but at least it worked to some degree. The “riffle with a tellescope to it” apparently no longer exists. However, perhaps someday, it will be rediscovered. Stranger things have happened.“
-
I had heard of the Rittenhouse /Peale collaboration, but I believe their efforts did not result in a successful sight. A good read on the subject of telescopic sights and picket rifles is John Ratcliffe Chapman's book The Improved American Rifle.
-
Subsequent to the last post in this thread, the following article was published that some may find interesting:
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/charles-willson-peales-riffle-with-a-tellescope-to-it/
Here’s the conclusion:
“The diary does not provide us with all that we would want obviously. However, some observations and deductions can be made without going too far out on a limb. As Peale spent two entire days (January 1st and 2nd, 1776) consulting with the telescope and instrument maker David Rittenhouse about a telescopic sight it seems reasonable to believe that a great deal of thought went into the project. On January 10, Peale was back in consultation with Rittenhouse and the gunsmith, Mr. Palmer. History was made on the afternoon of January 11, 1776 when Peale shot his new rifle, probably the first ever to have been equipped with a telescopic sight, for the first time “in the Stadt House yard.” The “Stadt House” of course is the State House in Philadelphia; now known as Independence Hall.
The January 13 entry seems to indicate special work was done as Peale paid Rittenhouse’s Journeyman for making “box, loops” which may mean a patch box of some sort and sight rings to attach the telescopic sight to the rifle barrel. The fact that the box opened and the bullets and wiper fell out does not seem significant except in frustration to the shooters.
It is interesting that he spent February 5, 6, 7, and 8 “trying to sight my Riffle.” It is not hard to visualize Peale struggling to make adjustments to the telescopic sight and find the load of powder that would give the best accuracy. Doubtless, there was much trial and error, and frustration involved. On the 9th, Peale works on a spring arrangement for the telescopic sight so it would not impact his eye on firing. This gives us a picture of a telescope with very short eye relief which required the eye to be close, too close, to the end of the scope. Upon recoil the scope would hit Peale in the eye.
On February 16th, he is back firing again and then on the 19th he “shot several times in a small piece of Papier at 100 yds.” Success. He shoots again on the 27th. On the 29th he talks over his load with Rittenhouse, receives an opinion about heavy loads, and shoots the rifle for the last recorded time on March 2.
The flintlock rifle with a telescopic sight was a reality. It may not have been practical but at least it worked to some degree. The “riffle with a tellescope to it” apparently no longer exists. However, perhaps someday, it will be rediscovered. Stranger things have happened.“
Thank you.
I suspect the problem was with the mounts or keeping the lenses in place/likely both. Remembering today that air rifle scopes, with the “reverse recoil” of the spring powered versions, have to be made differently than scope designed for firearms. BUT this is just what I have read. Scopes for military use in the US were still limited and had various “problems” until well into WW-II. Some were too low powered and others too fragile. So making one in 1775 was just a dream. I wonder if Peale or Rittenhouse had vision issues? In WW-I the Germans went to the sporting rifles and used them and their scopes as snipers. The British were not much into scopes or rifles for that matter. America had scopes that would have worked, Winchester had some pretty good scopes by 1908 or so. But don’t know they were used since they used the sliding tube type mount (hard to be reset every shot and were fragie. A really good standardized sniper system was not put in place until after VN. So it took a long time from Newton to the 1970s in the US anyway.
Its interesting to note that the practical rifle scope did not appear until the advent of the “modern” machine tool, mills and lathes, circa 1850. The invention of the modern machine tools and methods is credited to Robbins and Lawrence. But we have remember that Nicador Kendall was also a partner for their first contract for Gov’t rifles and Lawrence in his biography, quoted in Sellers “Sharps Firearms” states this was the first such contract (10000 arms) finished on time. Given the comments on Kendall in the Warner/Lowe papers I wonder if he was the real brains of this. But we will never know. Making a set of adjustable scope mounts with files would be a daunting task. Though people could do very good work with a file.
Wolfgang Droege (best known as the first maker of reproduction Sharps rifles) told me of being an apprentice machinist in Germany through the WW-II era. He told me the first thing the apprentices had to do was to make a piece of steel into a perfect cube with just a file. He said some of the cubes got pretty small. Then they had to make a square hole through the middle. And of course it had to be “perfect” as well.
I need to get to the shop.
-
I had heard another reason for failure of the Peale/Rittenhouse effort was because of the danger of recoil driving the scope into the eye of the shooter, causing injury. I don't know how accurate that is but I do know the danger to the shooter was not remedied until the advent of return to battery scopes many years after good scopes were in common use. John Ratcliffe Chapman credits Morgan James with making the first practical telescopic sight in the 1840's. These used custom mounts as did pretty much all scopes did until years later. Over the years I've had occasion to use rifles fitted with these old scopes and if in good condition they work very well. Morgan James also made the first internally adjustable scope which he fitted to an 1841 military rifle along with a barrel of his own make. This rifle is shown in Ned Roberts' book but I believe it is erroneously stated the rifle has a standard military barrel: it did not. While makers like Wm Malcolm became more well known for making scopes and mounts there were a number of other makers as well who made them, usually of pretty good quality.
-
Bear in mind that just because the technologies were there (rifles and telescopes) doesn't mean their merging together would be successful the first few attempts. History is full of people almost, but not quiet, inventing a lightbulb, a telegraph, etc. I have a couple of late 1700s early 1800s telescopes, and they'd been used on sailing ships for at least 75 years when the achromat lens doublet was invented, around 1830 if I recall without looking it up. Though these are pretty sharp and could work, mounting on a rifle so you can adjust for bullet drop is harder. As is finding a way to make a crosshair or some other defined aim point inside of it.
A circa 1820s Dollond telescope:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51116208889_cbc54e4da3_h.jpg)