Rifle scopes in 1776 ?

[blunderbuss]

This is interesting to say the least .If there were just one reference ,but there are two and different people in different years and only in one colony. To me that means we're not seeing the very first scopes.

[Bill of the 45th]

Another case of "if they hada they coulda or woulda" but there are no academic proof's.  We ned chapter and verse, otherwise just conjecture.  Like the recently discovered compression fire starter, that was used in the eastern Pacific, but not here.  just the thing TV shows will turn into history.

Bill

[blunderbuss]

 To discover something like this one has to have conjecture first and then find the proof. I just went through something like this with a particularly stubborn bunch or re-enactors here in Texas concerning the use of percussion caps in the Texas Revolution. If you notice in the Billy Bob Thornton Alamo movie there were no percussion guns. We had studied some and knew the nature of man is to equip himself with the best he could fine,any advantage. Our opposition claimed there were percussion caps in the USA but where would one find them in Texas? Basically that was their argument. Well we got up a forum of sorts and pooled our knowledge and study and were supprised to find that it was the flintlocks that were in the minority. ( Civilian wise) We may also have a lead as to some of the "Common rifles" from New Orleans first assumed to be flint now could have been percussion. When the information started coming in it came in fast,as we were working together.

[spgordon]

Conjecture marked as conjecture--and with persuasive reasoning behind it--is one thing.

But conjecture that ignores established facts seems more like a desire to have something be true rather than a desire to discover the truth. I would suggest with respect that the stubbornness, in this case, lies with whomever is so determined to insist on a particular truth that he distorts relatively straightforward statements to make them mean the opposite of what they say.

These two quotations from September 1775 and January 1776 demonstrate that a group of connected individuals were, together, conceiving of the possibility of a rifle with a telescopic sight. The incidents described in these two quotations are related, an order ("procure x) and a response ("working on x). I'm not honestly sure what you mean by "different people in different years and only in one colony," but these quotations display the opposite of "people all over were thinking about telescopic sights so they must have existed." It shows, instead, a small group of people in one place at one time working to solve a problem.

I suspect everybody who reads this agrees that forums such as this are an excellent way to work together to share information. The information from 1775 and 1776 that I shared points to the conclusion that telescopic sights, while desired, weren't possible yet for Rittenhouse and his crew.

If there is evidence that they surmounted whatever challenges they faced, share away!

[blunderbuss]

Or reads that they had scopes and still denies their existence.

[Dphariss]

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)

They also were never used in ML arms until they were invented for reasons I believe I already enumerated circa 1970.
Bullets of this type have several serious problems when used in the field. IE the are a sliding fit in the bore and are difficult to keep on the powder. They do nothing to seal the bore from moisture. The original Maxi produced dismal results as a hunting bullet, it seldom expands from all accounts and I have read accounts of people shooting deer the next year after being shot side to side through the chest with a 45 Maxi. So the "Maxi-Hunter" was invented.
A friend told me a meeting a hunter in the woods with a Maxi that was protruding from the bore a driving band and a grease groove.
As a reference this is why the American Army never had a minie ball cavalry carbine. The would not stay loaded if slung as was the standard for cavalry at the time. But then neither would any of the MLs unless loaded with a patched ball. The SB guns loaded with a paper cartridge would unload themselves in 5-10 miles.
See "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865".
As a result the American Civil War saw almost all Union Cavalry units with breechloaders of one sort or another.
For these reasons the "naked bullet" was seldom if ever used in MLS in civilian hands until well into the cartridge era (so far as I know) and then only for target use. These "naked" bullets were virtually identical to cartridge bullets of the time. So far as I can tell these were used by Schuetzen and other target shooters. Some such bullets are shown, along with the more common "picket" in "The American Percussion Schuetzen Rifle".

There are a few in Robert's book as well but its difficult to date the stuff..

Dan

[Dphariss]

Or reads that they had scopes and still denies their existence.

There is far more to this than making a tube with lenses (have you ever looked through some the 1870s scopes?) and the cross hairs. This is EASY.
The mounts are the hard part.
There were quite  few Sharps shipped with scopes in the 1877 era. But very few survive since they were so fragile. But there is documentation in shipping records and journals etc showing that they were in use. The same is true of the Civil War. There is none of this for the Rev-War or even the War of 1812.
I have been involved with old guns for almost 50 years now, studying, shooting, making and researching.
This discussion is the first inkling I have ever heard of scope sighted firearms in the 18th century.
The telescopic sight, the false muzzle and the practical elongated bullet all seem to appear at about the same time. Chapmen in "Instructions to Young Marksmen" 1848 does not give a time when they were invented but shows drawings of rifles with scopes and drawings of the mounts. But the elongated bullet with heavy charges stretched the effective range of the target rifle to 1000 yards.

It is interesting to note that of the large bore flintlock rifles used as wall guns at the time of the American Revolution (See RCA #139 for one example) that survive SFAIK none have a provision for a scope and no provision for a peep sight. Though since the rear sight of this 90 caliber rifle is missing and there is no photo of the muzzle end so we do not know what it had for sights.
While there are period descriptions of these heavy rifles there is no mention of telescopic sights and since they are virtually unknown it seems someone would have mentioned it.
They did shoot well enough to 400 yards or more to make a telescopic sight desirable there is no evidence in contemporary accounts of any such sight.
But as "cool" as this might seem there needs to be some account of someone using a rifle with a telescopic sight in the 18th Century in America.
Dan

[spgordon]

Or reads that they had scopes .....

See, now there's an unambiguous misreading.

If on September 7, 1775, Pennsylvania's revolutionary government directed "Mr Owen Biddle ... to procure a Rifle that will carry a half pound Ball, with a telescope sight," they evidently didn't "have" the scope. I would have thought it was to obvious to even mention that they wouldn't ask him to "procure" something that they already "had."

The second quotation (as well as the point Dan made: there would likely be evidence of somebody seeing/using these special rifles had they been achieved) makes it clear that Biddle couldn't simply contact gunsmiths in Lancaster or Philadelphia to "procure" this desired item. Rittenhouse had to start working on the problem.

I'll just add, to anticipate a reply, that in English we use the same word for:

"bring me a loaf of bread" [where the object is readily available],
"bring me Osama Bin Laden" [where the object exists but is difficult to obtain], and
"bring me a cure for AIDS" [where the object asked for is not yet in existence]

The language of the quotation cannot tell us which of these the PA Council meant. The surrounding evidence does.

Actually, the most significant evidence is that they ask him to bring them a rifle, not 50 of them. This is why the mis-statement with which you began this thread is so significant. Evidence that somebody asked for "50" such rifles would indeed suggest that they were a readily-available commodity. But there's no evidence that anybody asked for "50" such rifles. Instead, they told Biddle to bring them one--and so Rittenhouse (also a member of the Council) tried to make one that would satisfy the Council.

[Dphariss]

My June American Rifleman came today and it has an article by John Barsness on the history of telescopic sights.
About 3 paragraphs down we find.
"Issac Newton is usually credited with being the first to fit a telescopic sight to a firearm, sometime in the early 1700s"
But this still does not mean it was practical. The surviving rifles just do not show any signs of telescopes being in anything like common use before the 1830-40s.
By the 1850s there were firms producing telescopic sights, but these did not become a virtual standard until the 1960s or even later. Many rifles made in the 1950s had no provision for a scope.
I will admit that the heavy wall/ships rifle in RCA with the large rear dovetail is enticing, causing me to speculate on what the dovetail might have been used for.
If the rifle were captured on the battlefield the user could have destroyed the scope (if it had one) prior to its capture to prevent its use by the British.
But this is all speculation of the highest order since I have no idea what provisions there are for a front sight on this rifle.
But I did find the Newton information, if its correct, to be interesting.
It does give people here  a place to look and a reason for people who might have read Newton's writings to look into telescopic sights.

Dan

[Dphariss]

In looking through Chapman's "Improved American Rifle"
we find he states (in 1848) that "telescopes have been in use for sometime". Then goes on to point out how bad the mounts were and the problems they produced.
This is pages 51-55.
I assume the Chapman really had no idea when the scope was invented.
Dan

[blunderbuss]

You can bet they would have been top secret a thing like that would have given who ever had it a tremendous advantage. Agreed they wouldn't have been in general use quite rare overall I'd reckon. Still if Newton was trying it in the early 1700's and they were still at in 1776 looks like they would have had some success,I mean they're still improving them

[John A. Stein]

This thread has been an interesting read. It reminds me of Mark Twain's comment on science  "...one gets such large returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact"  John

[Glenn]

I think for the most part it's been an interesting thread.  Lots of good research accomplished here.  To be honest, I haven't researched any of it but I do have the gut feeling that it is NOT beyond Washington to have figured out a way to use some sort of telescopic sight.  Washington was a land surveyor and an involved thinker.  It would not be unlike him to picture in his mind a surveyor's scope or similar item on top of a rifle and motivate some young hawkeyed troop to give it a try.

Documentation to prove / disprove this is more than likely available somewhere just yearning to be found someday.  The absence of such documentation by no means proves definitively that such a high-tech marriage didn't exist.  I think most of us are broader minded than that. 

One thing I will agree on 100%; any such use of a scope by Colonial troops would have indeed been one of our best-kept secrets, and we all know how Washington felt about classified information, to include the use of clandestine operatives and tactical diversions.  Along with being the biggest and most successful bootlegger in American history, he was quite the military adversary to deal with.   

[spgordon]

The absence of such documentation by no means proves definitively that such a high-tech marriage didn't exist.

Agreed: as some historian said, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

[blunderbuss]

Here's something interesting see William Gascoigne 1612-1644 Wikipedia English put cross hairs on his telescopes to tell the center. I don't mean to say he mounted it on a weapon but any astronomer like Newton would have know this. Only meaning that part of the technology was there.

[Glenn]

Here's something interesting see William Gascoigne 1612-1644 Wikipedia English put cross hairs on his telescopes to tell the center. I don't mean to say he mounted it on a weapon but any astronomer like Newton would have know this. Only meaning that part of the technology was there.

I agree.  My point exactly ... The technology was there and the idea itself really can't be that hard to come by.

[Dphariss]

Here's something interesting see William Gascoigne 1612-1644 Wikipedia English put cross hairs on his telescopes to tell the center. I don't mean to say he mounted it on a weapon but any astronomer like Newton would have know this. Only meaning that part of the technology was there.

I agree.  My point exactly ... The technology was there and the idea itself really can't be that hard to come by.

Its fun to kick around ideas and think about things.
However.
While its really easy to put in cross hairs in a telescope as I stated before this was the easy part.
ALL the technology was NOT there even by the 1800 much less 1644. IE a USABLE set of mounts. These were not really in evidence until the 1840s +- maybe 5-10 years.

They MUST be adjustable and they must be adjustable WITHOUT bending the tube. Unless we want to suppose they had internal adjustments too.
Making a set of mounts that will maintain zero on a rifle is not all that easy. It takes pretty precise fitting and the rigidity needed to maintain a zero is not all that easy, at least not at the time.
Also the scopes were small diameter to control the weight. Too much weight, too much inertia, mounts fail. So the tubes of the early scopes are 3/4. The lenses even smaller and the light gathering and field of view of a 1860s-1870s scope was abysmal my even 1920 standards.
So while they had the telescopes they probably left a lot to be desired. The mounts are another matter and it took some time to make a mounting platform he worked even in the early industrial revolution.
They did not become somewhat common and there is no written reference to them prior to the 1840 period.
If their had been any significant number of these they would have been noticed by the riflemen in the British Army. If Hanger had heard of it or seen scope sights I cannot imagine him not mentioning it. He wrote books about shooting after all and stated he had examined "many hundreds" of American rifles.
But if there is a mention I have not seen it or heard of it.
If they perfected it why did not the men who's writings started this thread WRITE about it. Secrecy was not taken very seriously at the time so I can't imagine it being "classified". Anything used on the battlefield is not secret for very long.
If it were going to be done I would see it as some "look what I did" show off guild masterpiece in Germany or other European country.
While lack of documentation does not prove something did not exist. No documentation or evidence means its suppostion. There is no mention or evidence for the existence of a telescopic sight in use in America in the 18th century. If someone read Newton (and people DID read and if educated were actually educated) and Newton had mentioned it I can see where the interest came in.
Putting it into actual practice?
Dan

[spgordon]

My argument throughout this thread has been that the idea wasn't the hard part--and the recent additional information about Newton, Gascoigne, etc., reconfirms that. They obviously had the idea in 1775 when the PA Council sets Biddle off to find/invent such a thing.

The technology, from what we know, though, wasn't there--if by "there" we mean the capacity to actually produce telescopic sights for rifles that would work in practice. Like many scientific or technological projects, this was a problem that people were working on. As I've said above, the fact that Rittenhouse was recruited to work on it suggests that people thought it was a difficult problem to solve indeed.

While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to assert that there were in existence functioning telescopic sights one needs some evidence. Certainly the absence of evidence is not proof of presence, either!! Coupled with that, the evidence we do have from 1775/1776 indicates clearly that those in Pennsylvania interested in telescopic sights did not have the technology problem solved. And that is evidence of absence.

[JTR]

I think it's been interesting reading as well, however from the start, I questioned the Need for a telescopic scope, as the accuracy range of the rifles just wasn't that far.

True, there were shots taken, and sometimes made at extended ranges, but that was the exception and not the norm.
Even if you had a scope on your rifle and could see a target better at 400 yards, that doesn't mean that the rifle could consistently shoot to that point of aim every time, or maybe even most of the time.

And even if the scoped rifle was a National Top Secret, nothing stays secret forever. At some point the Brits would have seen the gun, captured the gun, or at least written about the gun and complained about the uncouth tactics of the rebels for using such a thing.

So, an interesting read, but to me, the chance of a scoped rifle being used in the rev war is just about zero.

John

[spgordon]

JTR's post made me wonder about what is maybe an obvious question but one that I hadn't thought to consider.

Does the "dream" of a telescopic sight for rifles indicate that rifles could shoot further than individuals could accurately see?

That is, why would one waste time on a telescopic sight (which they clearly wanted in 1775/1776) if one could see as far as the rifle could shoot without one?

Scott

[blunderbuss]

Hanger did mention a rifle and if I'm reading it right was a super flat shooting rifle In fact he was afraid of the technology getting out so he cut the barrel in two and threw one half over one side of a bridge and the other half over the other side. I have the entire footnote quote it's rather lengthy and written in English I mean real English some what hard to understand If someone wants email me and I'll send the quote back as I don't know how to put it up here

[mkeen]

Some information that has been missing in this thread is the expertise of David Rittenhouse (1732-1796). David was a mathematical and mechanical genius and self taught no less. He was the professor of astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania and a scientific instument and clock maker. One of his famous clocks with an orrary is on display in the Main building at Drexel University. His clock making and metal working abilities were certainly sufficient to build a working telescopic sight if he had been able.  Some websites that add information are:  http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelcollection/decorativearts.asp and http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/rittenhouse_david.html.

Martin Keen

[blunderbuss]

Some information that has been missing in this thread is the expertise of David Rittenhouse (1732-1796). David was a mathematical and mechanical genius and self taught no less. He was the professor of astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania and a scientific instument and clock maker. One of his famous clocks with an orrary is on display in the Main building at Drexel University. His clock making and metal working abilities were certainly sufficient to build a working telescopic sight if he had been able.  Some websites that add information are:  http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelcollection/decorativearts.asp and http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/rittenhouse_david.html.

Martin Keen

Sure Martin there were adjustments on the  telescopes they had already and they already knew how to grind the lenses,and we found they had cross hairs so they weren't just looking down range through an open view.mounting it to a rifle was all that was left and for an intelligent man like Rittenhouse from what I've read about him that would have been a piece of cake.

[Dphariss]

My argument throughout this thread has been that the idea wasn't the hard part--and the recent additional information about Newton, Gascoigne, etc., reconfirms that. They obviously had the idea in 1775 when the PA Council sets Biddle off to find/invent such a thing.

The technology, from what we know, though, wasn't there--if by "there" we mean the capacity to actually produce telescopic sights for rifles that would work in practice. Like many scientific or technological projects, this was a problem that people were working on. As I've said above, the fact that Rittenhouse was recruited to work on it suggests that people thought it was a difficult problem to solve indeed.

While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to assert that there were in existence functioning telescopic sights one needs some evidence. Certainly the absence of evidence is not proof of presence, either!! Coupled with that, the evidence we do have from 1775/1776 indicates clearly that those in Pennsylvania interested in telescopic sights did not have the technology problem solved. And that is evidence of absence.

I think we have people who have never tried to make a set of scope mounts that actually work.
Nor have they, in all likelyhood, ever looked through an old scope. Its not as easy as they think to make a scope that has light gathering, field of view and mounts that make it usable so that it shoots to the same point from shot to shot. Undetectable variations can result in serious changes in impact down range.
But for reasons of their own they really want a Rev-War era scope.

The brass tube scopes that Navy Arms and some others have sold are much better than some of the scopes of the past in terms of brightness and field of view. For one thing the vintage scopes, I am talking 1870s decades into known scope development here, have the objective lens several inches back inside a 3/4 tube I don't know why but its a fact they were often fairly high powered 10 power or more.
Then they don't understand that the small tube is an attempt to keep the lenses small and so the weight down because of limitations in the mounts limiting the amount of inertia they will tolerate.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Hanger did mention a rifle and if I'm reading it right was a super flat shooting rifle In fact he was afraid of the technology getting out so he cut the barrel in two and threw one half over one side of a bridge and the other half over the other side. I have the entire footnote quote it's rather lengthy and written in English I mean real English some what hard to understand If someone wants email me and I'll send the quote back as I don't know how to put it up here

Unless he hunted down and killed the guy the built it cutting up a gun and throwing in the river is not an effective way to prevent the spread of the technology.
I would really like to read this if you can find the citation.
My point is that when scopes actually came into use they turn up in all sorts of places, newspaper articles, books on shooting etc etc. But there is a complete lack of mentions during the 18th century.
This would have been big news and someone would have mentioned it.

Dan