How much shot would you use in an unchoked 38 to 50 caliber smooth rifle for ducks, or pheasants for that matter? Given the fact that many smooth rifles were, naturally, stocked as rifles and generally had rifle weight barrels just how useful WERE these guns for flying birds where quick handling is important?
Most smooth rifles were
rifle bore size and as such were not much over 50-52 caliber and often smaller, this is not a very good shotgun bore size.
The ONLY time a smooth bore can "out shoot" a rifle in a match is if the range is short, the targets are fairly large "hit or miss" and the rifle shooters are unskilled. If you shoot paper and MEASURE from center to get a score its simply not going to happen in a 10 shot match or even a 3 or 5 shot match. Its remotely possible that on a given day at 30-40 yards shooting three shots a smoothbore might accidentally shoot a group small enough to beat a rifle. But doing it consistently? Not going to happen.
The smoothbore is only economically feasible when shooting birds ON THE WATER where one shot will kill a number of birds. Other than than this its a massive waste of powder and lead for killing small game and useless for larger game with which it is less efficient than the rifle. Remember that they did not kill a massive number of rabbits, for example and freeze them. Game of this sort was shot as needed. Killing two rabbits aday with a rifle will take less powder and lead than a shotgun. Turkeys" they shot them with rifles too. Squirrels? Deer. Etc?
This economy, as I have noted a number of times, was noted in the 1750s-60s.
In the historical context the average American in the 18th or 19th century seldom hunted simply for sport. This was the recreation of the idle rich.
Now if one IS shooting for "sport" then the shotgun is a good gun. Its kinda like fly fishing.
We cannot get inside the heads of the people who used smooth rifles. We cannot even determine how many smooth rifles, as a percentage of the total survivors, were made as such.
My disagreement is not with the smooth rifles existence. Its with the myth that they are such wonderful multi-purpose guns when in reality they are actually less versatile than the rifle. Which is why the small bore ML rifle hung on far longer than the the ML shotgun did. The ML shotgun, as it was used the the time frame we generally concern ourselves with was not all that effective due to the lack of a choke or any kind.
If the smooth bore was the best option why did poor people in the western Colonial Frontier, who needed a firearm for personal protection and subsistence, apparently have more rifles per capita than the more affluent people farther east? Why did the rifle companies of the American Revolution come predominantly from the west?
The smoothbore was not even a particularly good weapon of war as it was waged by the Native Americans and Frontiersman. This was also known and noted by the middle of the 18th century.
But this has also be noted before with citations.
To this day the shotgun, the modern evolution of such, is inferior as a "survival" weapon to even a 22 RF pistol in the hands of a good shot.
The 22 rf took the place of the 28-36 caliber ML "squirrel" rifle of the 19h century. Effective and cheap to shoot.
In the earlier times the bore sizes were generally bigger average was likely in the high 40s, 48 maybe circa 1776. Still small enough to head shoot small game or easily take larger game. A 45 caliber rifle is an effective 50 yard deer rifle with one grain per caliber of powder. Probably farther but I KNOW its good at 50 yards. Find a smoothbore that has a bore large enough to be really useful as a shotgun, like for pheasants or ducks, then see if it will kill deer with 130 grains of lead and 45 grains of powder.
Dan
