Rifle scopes in 1776 ?

[blunderbuss]

 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?

[Glenn]

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 ... ()

[blunderbuss]

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

[Glenn]

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 !!!  

[blunderbuss]

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.

[Glenn]

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.

[blunderbuss]

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.

[Glenn]

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.

[blunderbuss]

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

[Glenn]

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.

[okieboy]

 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.

[blunderbuss]

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.

[okieboy]

 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.

[Luke MacGillie]

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

[Ky-Flinter]

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

[Luke MacGillie]

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

[Dphariss]

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

[blunderbuss]

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

[spgordon]

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/

--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

[okieboy]

 And we all know how good congressmen are at the clear and precise use of words. LOL.

[blunderbuss]

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

[blunderbuss]

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.

[spgordon]

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.

[blunderbuss]

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?

[spgordon]

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.