Author Topic: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?  (Read 53629 times)

blunderbuss

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2011, 08:43:59 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 03:19:55 AM by blunderbuss »

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #101 on: May 31, 2011, 03:56:35 AM »
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).




« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 04:11:54 AM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

blunderbuss

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #102 on: May 31, 2011, 04:48:58 AM »
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.

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #103 on: May 31, 2011, 05:19:17 AM »
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?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 05:29:13 AM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

blunderbuss

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #104 on: May 31, 2011, 05:50:24 AM »
First I have to hear the unsorced claims before I can find the sourced Now that makes sense doesn't it.

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #105 on: May 31, 2011, 06:37:01 AM »
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.
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

blunderbuss

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #106 on: May 31, 2011, 04:55:37 PM »
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.

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #107 on: May 31, 2011, 05:44:32 PM »
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."
« Last Edit: May 31, 2011, 06:11:35 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2011, 07:38:12 AM »
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Gary

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2011, 03:03:09 AM »
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.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2011, 04:04:12 PM »
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #111 on: June 07, 2011, 05:30:32 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 05:36:54 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

blunderbuss

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #112 on: June 07, 2011, 06:18:54 PM »
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

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #113 on: June 07, 2011, 06:52:39 PM »
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."
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 06:58:33 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #114 on: June 07, 2011, 06:58:05 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 06:59:46 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

blunderbuss

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #115 on: June 07, 2011, 07:20:52 PM »
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?

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #116 on: June 07, 2011, 07:24:37 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 08:08:44 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Offline Ky-Flinter

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7334
  • Born in Kentucke, just 250 years late
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #117 on: June 07, 2011, 08:06:17 PM »
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
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 08:14:15 PM by Ky-Flinter »
Ron Winfield

Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun. -Nate McKenzie

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #118 on: June 07, 2011, 09:43:18 PM »
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).
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 09:43:49 PM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Gary

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #119 on: June 08, 2011, 02:52:00 AM »
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.

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #120 on: June 08, 2011, 02:59:08 AM »
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
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 03:05:48 AM by spgordon »
Check out: The Lost Village of Christian's Spring
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And: The Earliest Moravian Work in the Mid-Atlantic: A Guide
https://www.moravianhistory.org/product-page/moravian-activity-in-the-mid-atlantic-guidebook

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #121 on: June 08, 2011, 06:35:55 AM »
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Gary

  • Guest
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #122 on: June 08, 2011, 08:31:36 AM »
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.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9741
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #123 on: June 09, 2011, 03:08:31 AM »
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
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline marko

  • Starting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Rifle scopes in 1776 ?
« Reply #124 on: December 28, 2022, 04:42:32 PM »
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.“
« Last Edit: December 28, 2022, 04:46:31 PM by marko »