Rifle scopes in 1776 ?

[blunderbuss]

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.

[Dphariss]

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.




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:



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

[spgordon]

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.

[blunderbuss]

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.




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:



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

[flintriflesmith]

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

[blunderbuss]

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.

[spgordon]

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

-------------------------

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

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...

[TPH]

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.

[Dphariss]

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

[blunderbuss]

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.

[JTR]

Excuse me while I get some popcorn!
John

[blunderbuss]

Excuse me while I get some popcorn!
John

Bring me some while your up.

[TPH]

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.

[blunderbuss]

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.

[rlm]

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)

[spgordon]

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?

[blunderbuss]

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

[spgordon]

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.

[blunderbuss]

both say they were working on rifles, with telescopes attached

[spgordon]

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."

[blunderbuss]

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

[Kermit]

For the fun of it:

http://www.hi-luxoptics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37&Itemid=52

[spgordon]

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?

[blunderbuss]

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.

[spgordon]

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.