rifles versus smoothbores

[Dphariss]

It's fun to discuss what would be better in situation X, etc but if it was unavailable at that time and place, it's an intellectual exercise.

You seem to be missing some things here.
Dan

Oh, I'm not missing much, I pretty much have the drill memorized by now.  I repeat, as always, arguments about the superiority of rifles over smoothbores have no meaning for me whatsoever in the historical context.  If efficiency and suitability for the task at hand is of primary importance, none of us would be shooting flintlocks.  I own and shoot several rifles and a couple smoothbores.  Each has their place in historical context.  For sure, a fella portraying or re-living the lot of a white guy in the fur trade in what is now Wyoming or Montana should be packing a trade rifle.

In the northeast (north of Pennsylvania) there was no big game hunting to speak of south of the St. Lawrence River.  Some deer, at close range.  The Hudson valley fowling pieces, British style fowling pieces, and New England fowling pieces were specifically developed to fit the needs of the locals.  They wanted to kill waterfowl.  No grizzlies, no elk, whatever deer and moose around could be had within 50 yards.  They took the time and effort to make a specific gun for local needs, and the choices were smoothbores.  These were farming communities also involved in the fur trade.  There were no long hunters, no white trappers or explorers.  The Iroquois in the NY state area ranged far and wide for both warfare (their style, low casualty, high efficiency guerilla warfare) and hunting- into the Ohio and Illinois territories, hunting bison and elk.  They acquired rifles and became proficient in their use.

In Pennsylvania and to the south, away from the coast, waterfowling was not as big a deal and there was opportunity to get in on the deer hide trade, and folks came from a rifle-using culture.  There are probably other reasons we don't even know about for the choice of rifles over smoothbores in the Pennsylvania and to the south. And of course with the opening of the west, with entirely different terrain and game patterns, rifles were quickly recognized as the most efficient weapon, except for the sport of buffalo running.  Different places, times, circumstances and cultures determined what people chose to use historically.

Nowadays we can choose whatever we want and figure out an historical context it will fit well.  Many of us choose to use both rifles and smoothbores and recognize their superiority and limitations in different circumstances.

Sigh. The point is entirely the idea that the smoothbore is superior to the rifle and more "versatile" IN THE 18th CENTURY CONTEXT. THIS is the mantra being foisted on me.
I submit that it is not. I have cited numerous examples with quotes from the 18th century.
It is not superior for hunting nor it is superior for warfare outside linear tactics this was pointed out AT THE TIME.
But nobody wants to consider this. Many will attack the 18th century sources as if THEY know more about the 18th century than the people who LIVED there. ITS RIDICULOUS.
People want to cite the natives using them. This is laughable as pointed out in a previous post.
For the average shop owner or farmer then smoothbore was as good as any since he likely never used the thing anyway unless the farmer was shooting at a skunk in the dark that had been raiding his chickens.
Here is a question.
IF the smoothbore was so superior in all respects WHY were there so many rifles?
Tell me please. Why did the rifle survive the 18th century in the east?  Why were all those 19th century rifles made at great expense if the smoothbore is better in all respects?

The problem in arguing this is that, based on experience, probably less the 10% of the people here who MAKE rifles and guns and propose to be experts ACTUALLY USE THEM for anything but wall hangers, costume props or works of art.
If you don't FIRE the gun it not only does it not need rifling, it does not need a vent either.
And a LOT of people in America DON'T use firearms. This was true in 18th century America as well.  But many were compelled to own one.
If they do use it they don't need to hit anything.
After all its only a smoothbore. Built in alibi.
This is  a pointless discussion since I have run into the dogma of the  magic smoothbore.
Its almost like arguing religion.

Dan

[rich pierce]

Who specifically is repeating this mantra of smoothbore superiority?  I have not heard it here. Seems if folks say, "smoothbores were used, smoothbores were common in some places and times, smoothbores can kill game at close ranges with a round ball, smoothbores worked better for conservative 18th century battle tactics which were designed around their limitations", this equates to you that "smoothbores are superior".

Smoothbores ARE superior for wingshooting.  I cannot hit a clay bird or a goose in the air with a rifle, nor can most shooters, but it can be done.  Smoothbores are better for waterfowling, even when the birds are on the water.

Smoothbores are also superior to rifles for portraying historical events, personas etc where the smoothbore represents the historical happenings.  In many situations (Saratoga) muskets and fusils (the Indians) are  approriate for the right kinds of troops, and rifles appropriate for the riflemen.

On many other forums folks do wax poetic about the accuracy of their smoothbores with round ball.  It can happen (sometimes by change, the flyers all flying the right way) but I wager the same guys who can carefully load a smoothbore to shoot into 2-3" at 50 yards can make cloverleafs with their rifles.  Human nature, few folks talk/brag about their muskets that can't hit an old fashined, 3' diameter buzz-saw blade gong at 50 yards.  Folks who find the smoothbore is remotely the equal of a rifle for accurate round shooting may not be very experienced or not a good marksman.  Maybe they never developed an accurate load for a rifle.

[Bob Roller]

For those who can NOT make up their minds as to which is best,Try a cape gun. I saw a dandy years ago in a booth at Friendship. It was a 16 gauge rifle with a 16 gauge smooth bore on the right side.
I once had a breech loader of similar configuration with a 577/450 on the left side and a 10 gauge on the other. The is no real reason a flintlock can't be made like this or even a swivel breech. That big breech loader was a comforting thing when on a fishing trip in the Smoke Hole area of WV years ago. I backed it with a Model 1886 Winchester in caliber 50-110. There were bears in that area and fishing trips had been ruined by bears tearing up a camp so I decided to ruin the bears if they tried it. One man stayed in camp while the others fished and we lost nothing.
Residents of that area liked the idea of the big rifles because they raised sheep. I haven't been there since 1967 so I don't know what it's like now. I hear rumors of commercialism that I don't like but only rumors.

Bob Roller

[James Rogers]

Lynn,

There are a bunch of folks that would love to find some documentation to support your thoughts and beliefs : )
There are hundreds of pieces of documentation for the civilian use of wadding with balls.
I believe that even if some good sources ever surface, it will never prove itself common like wadding.

[T*O*F]

There are a bunch of folks that would love to find some documentation to support your thoughts and beliefs

Evidently that is not true, for I posted said documentation in a previous discussion.  I guess it was ignored.  Every time a discussion arises, the same people argue the same points.  They seem to rely on their own "faith based" conclusions rather than actual documentation and continue to retain their beliefs.  Redudancy becomes tedious in such instances and many choose to no longer participate.

[bob in the woods]

I use my fowling piece a lot. It is a 10 bore. After trying patched balls , with different sized balls, wads, no wads, various thickness patching, ......all with OK but not great results; I tried paper cartridges and haven't looked back. It is more than adequate at the woods distances we see here, and packs a heck of a punch with its large ball and 120 to 140 gr charge.  I don't claim it to be a rifle, which I take when moose hunting, but it is good for 90 % of my hunting.

[James Rogers]

P

There are a bunch of folks that would love to find some documentation to support your thoughts and beliefs

Evidently that is not true, for I posted said documentation in a previous discussion.  I guess it was ignored.  Every time a discussion arises, the same people argue the same points.  They seem to rely on their own "faith based" conclusions rather than actual documentation and continue to retain their beliefs.  Redudancy becomes tedious in such instances and many choose to no longer participate.

Well, I can only speak for the bunch I know and not everyone.Can you link us to the documentation you presented in the prior thread?
I cannot imagine how that bit of information was missed as it would be very important.
I have only seen one piece of information that is even suggestive of PRB in the 18th century smoothbore gun and that is within the last 30 days.

[Dphariss]

The smoothbore really shines for waterfowl, its one of those specific uses, but is only economical if the birds are shot on the water in groups same for any game bird. Otherwise its an ounce or more of shot for 4-16 ounces of protein, more if  turkey or goose. But turkeys are harder to kill with a open bored shotgun or so I assume given all the modern 18th century hunters who need a "turkey choke" in their FL.
 I know how to do the "ground sluice" of birds but don't do it since I don't hunt with a scattergun and its illegal to shoot anything but turkey with solid shot and then only in the fall.
Did those folks who shot all those ducks and geese buy a boat with their fowling piece? Just wondering.  Maybe the wind blows them ashore.
A 10 bore smoothy is a great moose gun if there is nothing in the woods that shoots back. Men are far more dangerous than bears and if you shoot at one you don't want to miss.
In going to Quebec JJ Henry had 70 rounds in his pouch for his <50 caliber rifle. Ever put 70 rounds of 10-11 ga balls in a pouch and then carry it all day? Just wondered. Its another factor that is generally overlooked.
If you shoot a Red Coat through the body with either he will likely stop doing what every he was doing. But the rifle can do it a 200 yards and the shooter is less tired when he makes the shot.
Armed men hunting the hunter is something the 21st century "18th Century" guy often overlooks but this was an 18th century discussion. I also doubt it has any real advantage over my 16 bore rifle for moose. In fact I doubt it has an advantage over a 50 caliber rifle since at SB ranges the rifle can be used for head shots and use about 25% the lead and 2/3 the powder maybe.

There are other issues that we cannot recreate. Powder quality is one, perhaps a major one. Rifles need, or should have, better quality and finer powder than smoothbores from what we see in the old writings. Musket powder even in the 19th century was not really good stuff from the rifle point of view.
So far as the Eastern Pennsylvanians using fowlers I am sure some did, they are often close to waterfowl hunting but we have Sir William Johnson in 1761:
"They are remarkable at Philadelphia for making rifle Barrell Gunns [sic] which throw a Ball above 300 yards vastly well, & much better than any other Barrells. People here in general Shoot very well with ball, but don't doe [sic] much with shot."

But as I have pointed out concerning "quotes" this is one report from one man at one time. But its a quote from a New Englander who apparently did understand rifles. Which may have been why he had a problem finding an accurate one. Gun owners/shooters/riflemen. Obviously he fell into the "gun owner" or "shooter" category.
  
One more thing "The Frontier Rifleman" is by Richard LaCrosse Jr.   My screw up I got authors jumbled  . Comes from reading Hamilton on Gun Flints and "Frontier Guns".

Or maybe it's the stress

Dan

[Dan Fruth]

Ole man Johnny Wilkerson, slippin down the river..
Saw an injin up ahead, kinda made him quiver..
Saw the smoke, heard the bang, but it was a trifle
" That shot missed by half a mile...
Guess it wern't no rifle!"

[SPG]

"It's almost like arguing religion."

You may be closer to the truth than you know, Dan.

At least amongst most military folk of the day, rifles and riflemen were generally considered to not be socially acceptable. This attitude, specifically regarding snipers, has carried through many wars until just recently.

If you would like a real nasty fight, just mention the word "crossbow" amongst archery enthusiasts. Even traditionally styled and built crossbows have folks reaching for the tar and feathers. Everyone knows that the crossbow is the weapon of assassins, murderers, poachers and those with no redeeming social value. Like the rifle, it just works too good.

Steve

[Captchee]

 Personally I cant disagree with  most of what you have said Dan .
 When it comes to the accuracy discussion on this subject  I really think its relative to what one  considers accurate  enough .
 I shoot both rifle and smoothbore  and frankly IMO if a person cant get a 6 to 8 inch group at 75 yards with a smoothbore . Then something is amiss .
 While at the same time if a rifle cant produce a sub 3 inch group if not sub 1 inch at that distance then something is also amiss
. Myself I think this is were a lot of times folks get into the accuracy debate . Especially concerning trail walks where  many , to include myself , have witnesses skilled smoothbore shooters do very well .
 But then we are not talking paper type accuracy are we .
 
 When it comes to hunting . I have taken elk with both smoothbore and rifle . At least in the type of areas I hunt  a rifle frankly doesn’t out shine a smoothbore  simply because the range  I most commonly take  game  doesn’t   support the need for  longer range accuracy.

 When I was a boy , we also did a lot of waterfowl hunting . But we didn’t have a dog . So we used a type of Niksit to snag the birds out on the water . We should though remember that hunting waterfowl doesn’t necessarily mean one  is hunting over water
 So again it depends on what one is doing .

As to why so many rifles  have survived. I don’t know . But I tend to think that sometimes we over look or confuse  need and want .
 The rifled bore was coming of age .  Thus possibly many folks  just like today’s modern muzzle loading movement saw something they felt they needed . Justified or not  the case could be made that  the want became a  very real need . Maybe for the very same reasons as today  , who can say   

 I would also point out  in support of your opinion .  Even in the south east  there are accounts of rifles very early even in native hands . Thus we have the accounts of  proposed laws banning the sale of rifled guns to Native peoples .
So it would appear that at least for some , there was seen a very real threat to have   rifles  fall into the wrong hands  .

 This much I can say with certainty though . I have shot with enough  very, VERY good smoothbore shooters to know  that I wouldn’t want them shooting at me even at 100 yards .
  While im not  very good with my smoothbore . I think if the chips came down to  having to chose 1 gun . I would   have to think very hard about that not being a smoothbore .

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

An interesting thought as I was making my way into town today-

300 years from now will students of historical firearms be debating the superiority of the inline muzzleloader given the vast numbers made during the period and sold to the average hunter as well as the volumes of documented use in the sporting journals of the time?

Steve

[Joe S]

So we used a type of Niksit to snag the birds out on the water

What is a Niksit?  I tried Google, and couldn’t find anything about that word.

When I was a kid, if the wind wasn’t blowing, we swam for our ducks.  Chilly business if there was some ice in the water.

[Captchee]

What is a Niksit?

A Niksit is a type of weighted  snag hook  attached to a line .
 Some of the native peoples  who hunt seals use a heavy weighted  version to  snag the dead seal  and pull them in .


 in our case we used a piece of  pine  shaped like a large fishing  bobber  with some  lead for weight. Not enough to make it sink  but enough to give it weight to throw  .  this had 3 treble hooks . One on each side  and one on the end .

[Joe S]

Thanks Captchee.  You can sure learn some interesting things on this site.  That Niksit looks like a good idea.  I might have thought that up myself if I didn’t have a little brother to chuck in the lake.

[bob in the woods]

I wonder how much of this smoothbore vs rifle is location based. Down here in Eastern Ontario, you would be hard pressed to not find an old shotgun, often single shot , on the old farms. Out in North Western Ontario where my family homesteaded, my Great Uncle had only one gun, and like so many of his neighbours, it was a 30-30 Winchester. He used that 30-30 for everything.

[Lucky R A]

   It certainly seems to me that you guys are arguing apples and oranges.   Each type of gun has its strong points and weaknesses, especially when it comes to keeping body and soul together.   Now it you are able to choose your fight you choose the fight that favors the type of gun you are armed with, but we don't always have that luxury.  There are a number of active and retired L.E.O. s  who will tell you that gunfights most often happen at 7 yards or less in dim light or darkness.  To most of us a 12 ga. pump loaded with 00 buck was the weapon of choice.   I would imagine outside of war things were pretty much the same back then.  You had one quick shot in less than optimal conditions and it was then run like $#*!, or get real close and personal.  The up close and personal encounters did not written up and romanticised like Timothy Murphy making one outstanding shot.   Both weapons had their place, and still do.

[rich pierce]

Fellers, i moved most of the discussion about how to load round ball in a smooothbore (wadding versus a patched round ball approach) as that discussion, though active and interesting, was pretty far from the title of this topic and gunbuilding in general.  To follow that part of the discussion, go here: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=19739.0

[LynnC]

Thanks Rich - I have to admit rifles vs smoothbores has little to do with gunbuilding either 

[Captchee]

Gentlemen,

An interesting thought as I was making my way into town today-

300 years from now will students of historical firearms be debating the superiority of the inline muzzleloader given the vast numbers made during the period and sold to the average hunter as well as the volumes of documented use in the sporting journals of the time?

Steve

 thats what i was getting at when   i said confusing want and need .
 As with your example there was a foreseen want . That want has  now   become to many  a NEED  that is   commonly supported/ justified over and over again  by nothing more then a WANT, which again  boils down to an opinion. Be it factual or not .
 But that’s how people work  and frankly I don’t think people 200 years ago were any different . If we take the time to look  we can find examples  trends  back then as well  .

 I think we also  must remember that  the smoothbore as many have mentioned  , has its place .  After all did not HB still offer the NW guns tell into the 20th century ?
  Why were these not then fitted with rifled bores ?
 I also think that one of  the possible reasons why  more rifles  have survived could very well be that the smoothbores” in the hands of common folks “ were more utilitarian “
 Thus they were used up  and not being very high end to start with , well I think you get my point .
 But then if we step back and look at an even bigger picture we can find examples where
Surviving Smoothbores of the very same period  may just out weigh rifles of the same period . Especially when  looking at high end examples.
 But  then we have to  basically look outside the this country to find those examples.

I Know Dan doesn’t think very highly of Lenk’s book  which shows mostly  very high end smooth bores . But  those examples IMO are  nothing more then highly decorated models of the time . If we accept that , then where are all the lower grades  of those models . Basically few survived, leaving one to think  only the very high end were made .
So can we dispute that those  lower grades were made  or common . I don’t think we can
 Possibly even the lack of  multitudes of surviving examples  speaks  volumes .

So again maybe the answer lays in  examples of today . Im not sure of the rest of you but  when I take a look at my own family guns , some of which i own , dating back 4 generations . The  smoothbores and shotguns show far more use then the rifles .. Those very same smoothbores also out number the rifles 2 to 1 .
 they also for the most part are cheeper exsamples  then the rifles . thus 110 to 200 years from now  they probably wont exsist . while possably the rifles will . thus leading someone to  possably think  that  the rifle was  the choice of  the  men in our family . when ifact thats clearly not the case      

[Jim Kibler]

 I Know Dan doesn’t think very highly of Lenk’s book  which shows mostly  very high end smooth bores . But  those examples IMO are  nothing more then highly decorated models of the time . If we accept that , then where are all the lower grades  of those models . Basically few survived, leaving one to think  only the very high end were made .
So can we dispute that those  lower grades were made  or common . I don’t think we can
 Possibly even the lack of  multitudes of surviving examples  speaks  volumes .      

Though it seems reasonable the surival of plain 17th century firearms would be less than delux guns, many plainer guns exixt.  If one follows the bigger English and European auction houses in particular, examples can be seen.  the scope of Lenk's book was in large part a study of cutting edge Paris gunmaking.  I might add, It's my feeling that Europeans put a high value on firearms decoration.  It seems to me simpler versions are sometimes underappreciated underrepresented.  So, yes, the survival rate of plainer guns might be lower, but they do exist in good numbers.

Jim

[Dphariss]

   It certainly seems to me that you guys are arguing apples and oranges.   Each type of gun has its strong points and weaknesses, especially when it comes to keeping body and soul together.   Now it you are able to choose your fight you choose the fight that favors the type of gun you are armed with, but we don't always have that luxury.  There are a number of active and retired L.E.O. s  who will tell you that gunfights most often happen at 7 yards or less in dim light or darkness.  To most of us a 12 ga. pump loaded with 00 buck was the weapon of choice.   I would imagine outside of war things were pretty much the same back then.  You had one quick shot in less than optimal conditions and it was then run like $#*!, or get real close and personal.  The up close and personal encounters did not written up and romanticised like Timothy Murphy making one outstanding shot.   Both weapons had their place, and still do.

We need to real here.
Shotguns are increasingly outdated for police use, the AR platform is supplanting the shotgun and it seems to have replaced it completely in some areas. Its easier to use and more "versatile".
A quick shot at close range with a ball is a close range shot with a ball. What its shot from is irrelevant, pistol, rifle, musket, you better PLACE THE SHOT.  Just hope they are not inside the muzzle of the typical rifle or fowler of the time.
At short range buckshot has no spread either so its a "solid ball" for all intents and purposes. So pattern a SB at 7 yards with buckshot and see what the actual spread is and then ask how important shot placement is. Its small enough that the idea that buckshot is somehow easier to hit with at short range is simply myth. You gotta place the shot. This IS easier with a longgun and that is the advantage of the shotgun in a short range gunfight. Its not nearly as good for repeat shots/multiple targets as the AR however.
Its a fallacy that you can simply point a load of buckshot in the general direction and get results. This is how people miss  and get shot in combat.
This foolishness (shotguns are better at close range) carried over to having shotguns in some infantry squads as late as the VN war.  What idiot thought this up I don't know but I bet he never carried one on patrol.... My unit didn't have any but 1/11 inf in the same brigade did.
Stupid. Basically reduced the squads effectiveness by one in almost all situations
I think you will look a long time before finding an shotgun with an infantry squad in Afghanistan..

I do not see this as smoothbore vs rifle. I see it as a mindset that has grown from faulty research or research that was not properly evaluated and belief in various myths concerning the musket/fowler/shotgun and its practicality and usefulness across a wide range of uses.
There seems to be a considerable amount of "don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes" thought process involved here. This is just dandy if you have a squad, company or regiment and are facing a squad, company or regiment. If you are 1 or two guys facing 5 or 10 and are undetected you better not fire closer than 100-150 yards if you want to live through it unless you have at least 1866 Winchesters.
Distance is safety.  

Then the problem of of someone coming to a site such at this or one of the re-enactor sites asking about firearms and the "experts" immediately respond by telling the guy he should have a smoothbore since they were more common.  They don't care what the person may want the gun for or where he lives, he has to have a smoothbore because of some arbitrary decision by one or more "experts" some of which don't even shoot live ammunition.
While there are times and places where the the rifle is not "documented" most places in Colonial America had rifles. Not a majority but they were there documented from the 1680s on. But we have people who will insist that the rifle is a late comer and was not in use until the F&I War and will even attack or at least ignore "documentation" that disagrees.

Yes there are fine shots who can do well on trail walks etc. But would they do WORSE with a rifle? Do they load the SB as the 18th century user would? Is there ANY documentation for patching balls in SBs in the 18th century? There is detail on rifles using patches but not SBs that I know of. For one thing it gives the rate of fire of a rifle without the accuracy. Rate of fire is the PRIME COMPLAINT against the rifle in the military context. I find paper cartridges work well in rifles for a few rounds and greatly increase the rate of fire but they are not mentioned in period writings either.
So why don't they wad a loose ball (.020-.030 under bore) with paper or tow and shoot that way? Maybe they need to change to SB match rules

Dan

[Pete G.]

I would much rather believe someone who's line of work involved live or death situations than someone who just likes to fill up pages with verbiage.

Carrying a particular type of gun does not make one an expert. Nor does using it one or twice.
The guys in Iraq used smothbores every day........to breach doors. They used rifles to fight.

[Captchee]

 i wasnt  trying to say that the lower end pieces  didn’t survive jim . Some did . We both know that . But myself , I tend to think that a lot more didn’t .
 While the   pros and cons  of rifle vs. smoothbore can be debated all day long . The fact still remains that  the smoothbore still exists today . If the answer  for all , was the rifle  then  shotguns wouldn’t be around .

As to military experience .  that’s been some time ago for me so I cant comment on what they use today past what I see on TV . But as an 11B myself , I can tell you we had   a shotgun per squad .
 I also fail to see the accuracy issue  even with buck shot at close range . If you have a 10 inch kill zone, what difference does it make if that gun produces a 4 inch group vs. a sub one inch group . Dead is dead   there is no coming back from it

[Dphariss]

I Know Dan doesn’t think very highly of Lenk’s book  which shows mostly  very high end smooth bores . But  those examples IMO are  nothing more then highly decorated models of the time . If we accept that , then where are all the lower grades  of those models . Basically few survived, leaving one to think  only the very high end were made .
So can we dispute that those  lower grades were made  or common . I don’t think we can
 Possibly even the lack of  multitudes of surviving examples  speaks  volumes .

Lenk's book is generally not very useful to the Kentucky rifle builder making a Beck or a Daniel Border and this was the context in my previous comments on the book.
I bought mine in the 1960s and was disappointed at the time.
However, in the past few years i find myself looking at it more and more for other things. Most recently for early rifles and there appear to be some 17th century examples, based on the sights, to Lenk, or who ever translated the book, the long arms are all "guns" so the descriptions are not helpful..
One has a relatively heavy octagonal barrel, a pretty early looking flintlock, rifle sights and a patchbox. Its also very plain, probably some hunters rifle etc. Not a gun for royalty. I am sure it would have fit well into the group of rifles the Governor of NY told of in the 1680s.

I have owned this book since about 1967 and had not noticed this gun before.
The stock designs of many of the late 17th century guns are very modern and could be used on 1770s guns or even later just as easily as could the locks. The heavily curved locks everyone tends to put on "early" guns are really not needed. Many had straight plates that are much like a Siler.
So there are things to be learned. Such as just because a guns or rifle has a straight plate lock and a "late 18th" stock design its not necessarily a mid-late 18th century gun. It could be 70-80 years earlier.

Just rambling on now.

Dan