I’m interested in separating lore from ground truth via available evidence instead of demagoguery that does little more than restate the lore.
“All armed with rifles” doesn’t ring true because the evidence doesn’t support it. Virginia Militia…mostly farmers and not professional hunters/trappers ala Natty Bumpo…supplied their own weapons, and to assume all those cash-strapped, first-generation subsistence farmers in 1764 owned a rifle costing 6 pounds as opposed to a fowler costing 3 pounds isn’t supported by the preponderance of evidence. In turn, the ratio of 350 rifles to 1500 smooth-bores confiscated from 2000 Scottish settler households after the 1776 Battle of Moore’s Creek, does ring true (and for a welcome change is period evidence presented by someone who knew what he was looking at). That’s not to say Bouquet didn’t have a healthy percentage of skilled riflemen, or that he didn’t use them effectively…he did, and Washington would later emulate him by asking for dedicated frontier rifle units in 1775…but casual statements from secondary sources should always be challenged. In fact, it’s probably fair to call Bouquet the progenitor of the dedicated American rifle units that were so successful in 1775 and 1776, as some of the 1775 battalion and regimental commanders had been junior officers under Bouquet in the two previous conflicts.
Further, given the inaccuracies inherent in casual reports, accepting these statements at face value only perpetuates the inaccuracies. For example, “Kachlein’s Riflemen” of lore circa 1775 was in real life the Northampton County Militia…more farmers…where the evidence suggests they were hardly all armed with rifles like Morgan’s Thompson’s, Miles’ and Stevenson’s purpose-organized rifle units. Same with the lore about early Christian Springs’ rifles. While their riflemaking school may have begun in 1757, the evidence suggests few of their neighbors were armed with anything other than farm implements during the Indian attacks of 1763, and the Moravians didn’t begin producing rifles on a for-profit, production basis until 1762, a year or so before John Moll arrived after the 1763 Whitehall Massacre. Hence the default answer for whether Moll or Albrecht had greater influence on Northampton gunmaking probably shouldn’t tilt toward Albrecht, who was only a part-time gunmaker from 1757 to 1762 and was gone entirely by 1766.
Same with the natives. While I’m sure Natty Bumpo’s Mohican companions were armed with fresh, well-maintained long rifles costing 6 pounds or more with which they could shoot into a 7-inch circle at 250 yards 10 times out of 10, I’d like to see some evidence that the overwhelming preponderance of the firearms in tribal possession…when they owned them at all…weren’t poorly-maintained, 2-pound smoothbore trade guns.
We have good evidence that the Natives of PA and Western NY were armed with rifles to a significant extent by the 1740s. We have a written account that the Indian Allies that accompanied Braddock were rifle armed. The quote reads "very dexterous with a rifle barrel gun and tomahawk" this from an nameless eyewitness according to Bailey.
I am not sure the assumption that the poor did not own rifles due to cost will withstand scrutiny.
There is a quote in pg 76 “British Military Flintlock Rifles” By Bailey
It states that the very poor are selling rifles to the Creeks at “monstrous price” and that the gun is the greatest part of their estate.
This seems to refute the idea that the poor did not own rifles. At least in SC.
Which also raises the question of who was making rifles in SC in 1756?
But then rifles were being imported from England in the 1750s and probably before. So making rifles here is irrelevant. Just because there is no documentation for making rifles in any part of Colonial America is no proof there were no rifles. Rifles (and smooth rifles) purchased in London were for sale in America, documented, in 1757 I am sure these were not the first.
I would assume that selling the rifle at a profit resulted in the "very poor" eventually becoming less poor. But this is speculation.
The Gov’t agents, north and south, were trying to keep rifles from native hands by the mid-1750s. But it was not possible according to Bailey.
Did all natives have rifles? No. Just like the whites some did not like them or could not use them to best effect. A smoothbore is as good as a rifle to the poor shot. A good shot that tries a rifle or learns to use one has little use for a SB.
There is an account of a flatboat being overrun along the Ohio in 1790 “Incidents Attending the Capture, Detention, and Ransom of Charles Johnston of Virginia”.
Johnson states the Natives, a considerable war party, were rifle armed. Being from various tribes from Ohio, “friendly” eastern tribes and some Cherokees or other southern tribe.
Rifles would make sense when attacking boats on a wide river. Were they REALLY ALL rifle armed. Unlikely. But most could easily have been.
But some surely were. Also, part of the booty he was forced to carry into Ohio was a very heavy rifle barrel.
He does state that he and his fellow travelers were armed with “nothing better than common fowling pieces” except for one who had a "small neat rifle".
This seems to indicate 2 things, fowling pieces were used but were apparently not thought to be the best choice but merely “sufficient”.
But given the foolishness that lead to their being attacked no firearm would have made any difference.
As someone else pointed out you seem determined to force the witnesses of the past to conform to your current opinions. The fact that you are so unwilling to accept documentation from the past concerning firearms types and uses makes me question everything you write as probably being biased toward whatever you want things to be rather than what the WERE in reality.
OF COURSE SBs outnumbere rifles. Most people, considering the general population, not only did not know how to use one they HAD NO NEED for one. I suspect that a great many firearms owners of the Colonial period only had what was needed for militia use and never used it in any practical sense unless ordered to do so.
The true riflemen are rare even today. Most are gun owners, if that, and are not serious shooters even if they own firearms.
So rifles are going to be relatively rare ESPECIALLY in the more settled areas. A store keeper in 1776 Philladelphia is not likely to be sniped by a rifle toting native while standing in the door of his house. Someone living on the western frontier might be as safe.
If 10% of the natives have rifles and know how to use them, and accounts of the 1750s say they did. HOW DO YOU COUNTER THEM WITH A MUSKET. Answer? Its impossible. The rifle was a much more effective weapon from the military standpoint other than in LINEAR EUROPEAN tactics which the Natives were never dumb enough to emulate. If a couple of natives with rifles are 100 yards from the door its not possible to open it. If you have rifle you can shoot from a loop or crack without exposing yourself with some hope of killing them or at least causing them to seek easier prey. At 100 yards the typical smooth bore is little more than a noisemaker in this context. Read the accounts of accuracy testing of the typical musket well into the 19th century.
We have accounts that the rifle was effective at 150 yards. Its EASY to hit a man at this distance with a rifle over 36-40 caliber. The Musket is USELESS at this distance for point targets. The bayonet is not of much use at even 50 yards. Especially if the rifleman using a tree for rest shoots the musket armed enemy in the guts at 150 yards. Shooting your enemy at a distance is always an advantage.
The rifle is documented as being in Militia use in America from at least the 1680s (500 foot and fifty riflemen) about 10%.
Then we have the question of where did the 1740s natives learn of the rifle? Why would they want one?
One simply cannot counter the evidence by saying people were to poor. This is irrelevant when its a NEEDED item for survival.
I would also point out that Natty Bumpo is fictional, sort of a 18th century superman and trying to use a character of this sort to belittle other people's arguments is a form of insult.
Dan
