Author Topic: Rifle Accuracy 1776  (Read 104640 times)

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #150 on: November 24, 2013, 09:50:52 PM »
I wonder if we should revive our long range shooting thread and base it on this thread?
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #151 on: November 24, 2013, 10:28:24 PM »
First, let me say I found both Taylor’s and Daryl’s targets to be very respectable, indeed, especially as how they did not shoot prone – which would have made the target scores even better.  Taylor shooting better offhand than in sitting DEFINITELY has my respect!! 

I am not trying to be morbid, but the pictures of the targets in front of Taylor and Daryl, easily gives one an idea of what the hits on a man size target would have been at 200 yards.  If the white center square was 6” x 6”, then Taylor got what from my experience would have been one “V” and Daryl got two “V’s.”  Not sure if I’m “reading” Daryl’s target correctly and I may not be giving him full credit.  (I apologize now, in case I’m mistaken.)   These could have been “head shots” had that been the aiming point on a British Soldier in 1776. 

Again with my poor vision I may be mistaken, but it looks like Taylor would have put at least 6 killing/disabling shots into the body of an enemy soldier and maybe as many as 7 or 8.  I would not have wanted to be an enemy of Taylor’s in 1776 with that kind of shooting!

We have to realize some things from these results.  I may be wrong, but from reading other posts by Taylor, I assume he used a tight ball/patch combination and short starter that an 18th century Rifleman did not have.  That gives him advantage over an 18th century Rifleman.  However, Taylor’s best shots were offhand and since he did not shoot prone, we don’t know how good the target may have been and I’m sure it would have been better.  Finally, though pressure was on to shoot a good score, he did not have anyone shooting at him and thus he shot better because of it.  PLEASE understand I’m not trying to criticize Taylor’s shooting as that was a fine target he shot.  I’m just trying to put it in the perspective of this thread. 

What I would EXTREMELY interested in knowing are:

1.  What is the front sight height of Taylor’s rifle and how would it compare to an 18th century rifle?

2.  What sight picture did Taylor use at 200 yards?

3.  Did Taylor have to “hold over” his normal aiming point at 100 yards and if so, how much? 

Thanks,
Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #152 on: November 24, 2013, 10:33:14 PM »
I wonder if we should revive our long range shooting thread and base it on this thread?

CS,

For purposes of discussion for this thread, could you please answer questions 2. and 3. in my post directly above, on the way you shot the 200 yard course?  Thanks.
Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #153 on: November 24, 2013, 10:48:59 PM »
Gus, Taylor would have to answer that.  I can only speak for myself on my target which I still have and will post a picture of it in a few minutes.  Now mine, (like Daryl's) was shot with a cap lock, which mine is now a flintlock.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 12:20:18 AM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #154 on: November 24, 2013, 10:58:37 PM »
Gus, Taylor would have to answer that.  I can only speak for myself on my target which I still have and will post a picture of it in a few minutes.  Now mine, (like Daryl's) was shot with a cap lock which is now a flintlock.

Sure I understand about Taylor.

By asking these questions, I’m trying to test my theory that American Riflemen could aim at the head of a British Soldier at 200 yards and bullet drop would cause many or most of the shots to land in the torso of an enemy soldier.  In the stress of combat, that would give a definite advantage with Riflemen not having to figure out where to aim.  Though I believe my theory “works on paper,” I am not sure it stands up in the real world.

Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #155 on: November 24, 2013, 11:12:26 PM »
Here is my target, and the rifle I used (cap lock at the time) with fix iron sights.  If I remember right I believe I held about two feet above my target (not real sure now), and about 2 feet right because of the cross wind I was reading at the time, done so by just the feel of the wind itself.  I don't know where shot #4 - kneeling went?

The way you see the target is the way I shot it.  My sight heights remain pretty much unchanged from that day.  Bottom of rear notch 5/32nds, and 3/16" front blade.  This particular rifle is zeroed for 25 & 50 Yards with the 50 yard zero "hold" shaded just a tad high of center.

Above each nickel is where the ball's struck.  The holes are taped over as I was going to reuse this target the following year and never did.  I estimate 8 kill/wounded shots out of 10 fired, (4 kneeling & 4 offhand).

« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 12:21:24 AM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2013, 11:27:15 PM »
Good info, CS, Thanks.

Ok, with the way you sighted your rifle for today’s shorter range shooting and with a 2 foot hold over, it looks like you would have gotten most of your shots in the bottom of an enemy’s torso at 200 yards, if you would have aimed at an enemy’s head. 

If your rifle was sighted for longer range, like we are assuming the American riflemen did back then, then aiming at the head or even the enemy’s hat would have dropped the balls into close to the center of the body.

Though the results of one rifle and one target can not be taken as proof, your results seem to suggest the theory works.  Maybe we are getting closer to understanding how they aimed for 200 yard shots?
Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #157 on: November 25, 2013, 12:53:13 AM »
I think we have to look at the extreme vertical spread north to south and ask the question of how consistent can one be with the hold over guesstimating from one shot to the next?  The spread on my target is roughly 18 - 19 inches north to south.

My load was (and this is factual as it's the same load I always had used in this rifle) up to and through this target being shot;

65 grains 3fg Goex
.018 Pillow Ticking lubed with TC 1000+,,, and spit added to patch on loading
.445 Hornady round ball (short starter was used)
#11 RWS Cap

Est. Muzzle Vel. - 1895 fps (taken from my old Lyman Black Powder Handbook)

(Later I switched to just spit patching, and recently to TOW Mink oil)

Barrel; .45 caliber - 36" x 7/8" Green Mountain Barrel - 1 in 60 twist

Just some additional information in case it's helpful?

Note;  The object was to get all the shots in the center 6" x 6" white bull.  If one wants to equate the bullseye to the head, the drop roughs in at roughly holding 36" above center of the bullseye.  I recall holding 24" (in that neighborhood) above the top of the cardboard.

Of course, you could equate the top of the cardboard to the top of the shoulders and come up with a completely different look on effectiveness of just taking out enemy combatants.


« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 01:05:33 AM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #158 on: November 25, 2013, 02:04:46 AM »
I think we have to look at the extreme vertical spread north to south and ask the question of how consistent can one be with the hold over guesstimating from one shot to the next?  The spread on my target is roughly 18 - 19 inches north to south.


Note;  The object was to get all the shots in the center 6" x 6" white bull.  If one wants to equate the bullseye to the head, the drop roughs in at roughly holding 36" above center of the bullseye.  I recall holding 24" (in that neighborhood) above the top of the cardboard.

Of course, you could equate the top of the cardboard to the top of the shoulders and come up with a completely different look on effectiveness of just taking out enemy combatants.

Sorry, CS, I must have misunderstood you earlier.

I thought you meant you were holding 24” above the center of the target and in fact you were holding about 36” above the center of the target.  So the actual drop of the bullet to what you were trying to hit was 36”.  That is a good bit of difference.  So, if one used even the top of the head or hat to aim at: there’s a good chance you would only hit a soldier in or below the lower torso (in the legs) with your rifle, the way it is sighted.

You, Taylor and Daryl have shown how hard it is to hit a head shot at 200 yards, even though you might/probably been more accurate had you shot from prone.  However, even with the added advantage of prone shooting, it seems to me to demonstrate that a period Rifleman who could reliably make a head shot at 200 yards had to truly have been an exceptional rifleman. 

Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #159 on: November 25, 2013, 02:28:37 AM »
[in fact you were holding about 36” above the center of the target]

Yes, that would equate, so around what I determined to be 24" high off the top of the cardboard, (36" from the bullseye center).

Something I didn't mention before and it might be pertinent to my target?  At my Range, from our firing line the ground raises 21 feet over 300 yards (7 feet per 100 yards).  You really can't see the rise, but it's there.  Two different contractors with their measuring equipment shot this with their instruments years ago and came up with the same measurement.  Don't know if this makes a difference or not?  So at 200 yards the range is actually 14 feet higher then at the firing line.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 02:32:24 AM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Tennessee
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #160 on: November 25, 2013, 03:00:07 AM »
[in fact you were holding about 36” above the center of the target]

Yes, that would equate, so around what I determined to be 24" high off the top of the cardboard, (36" from the bullseye center).

Something I didn't mention before and it might be pertinent to my target?  At my Range, from our firing line the ground raises 21 feet over 300 yards (7 feet per 100 yards).  You really can't see the rise, but it's there.  Two different contractors with their measuring equipment shot this with their instruments years ago and came up with the same measurement.  Don't know if this makes a difference or not?  So at 200 yards the range is actually 14 feet higher then at the firing line.

My amateur ballistician de arm-chair degree says, no significant effect from a 2% grade.   ;)  Would love to hear any argument to the contrary. 
Hold to the Wind

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Tennessee
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #161 on: November 25, 2013, 03:01:56 AM »
I wonder if we should revive our long range shooting thread and base it on this thread?

I'd love to, now that I have a coal-burner to launch balls.  But i'm all busy with hunting and firewooding for the next 2 months.   ;)
Hold to the Wind

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #162 on: November 25, 2013, 03:07:15 AM »
14 feet higher target at 300 than from the shooting area?  Actually it demonstrates two things.

1.  You have to aim lower when shooting uphill or downhill because of the curved trajectory of a bullet.  So unless I’m too tired tonight, that means you may have been using more hold over than what is required on flat ground.  (I am not sure this is right as I’m tired, but I think so.  Grin.)

2.  What to the naked eye LOOKS like flat ground could conceal the fact the target is higher or lower at longer range.  Thus making figuring out the necessary “hold over, a bit more difficult.
Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #163 on: November 25, 2013, 03:16:53 AM »

My amateur ballistician de arm-chair degree says, no significant effect from a 2% grade.   ;)  Would love to hear any argument to the contrary.  

Wade,

A WWII era .30-06 round or a 7.62mm round only has a  bullet drop from zero to 300 yards of about 12 - 14 inches, so it would not matter significantly for them.

However, round balls drop about 6 FEET just between 200 and 300 yards, so I'm fairly certain a diiference would be noticeable.  I could be mistaken, though.
Gus
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 03:17:52 AM by Artificer »

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #164 on: November 25, 2013, 03:22:03 AM »
Gus, according to the Lyman Black Powder Hand Book, the load I used makes mention of a 48.53" drop at 200 yards.  This may explain the lost (12 inches of hold over)?  If so, no wonder the book never seemed quite on for my shooting purposes?

Wade, I think it would be fun to revive this in 200 yard shooting in the Spring. :)
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #165 on: November 25, 2013, 03:34:36 AM »
CS,

I am not sure, but I don’t think a target that would be roughly 8 or 9 feet higher at 200 than your shooting position would account for a 12” difference in hold over.  However, I’m not sure with round balls.

Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #166 on: November 25, 2013, 03:43:43 AM »
Gus, the target would be 14 feet higher at 200 yards, 21 feet at 300 yards.  Also, my son just told me moments ago (he asked me what I was doing and I filled him in on this thread a bit) anyway, he said he thought they shot that at 0 to 27 feet higher at 300 yards, so if this is the case, it could be 18 feet at 200 yards?
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #167 on: November 25, 2013, 03:51:20 AM »
Gus, the target would be 14 feet higher at 200 yards, 21 feet at 300 yards.  Also, my son just told me moments ago (he asked me what I was doing and I filled him in on this thread a bit) anyway, he said he thought they shot that at 0 to 27 feet higher at 300 yards, so if this is the case, it could be 18 feet at 200 yards?


CS,

Sorry I misunderstood earlier.  My bust.

14 feet difference at 200 yards should be noticeably different than flat ground.  21 Feet higher at 300 is close to or within “tree climbing shooting position” height. 

Not sure 14 feet at 200 would mean the difference of a full foot in drop, though.  I just don’t know. 

Guess I better pack it in tonight when I’m so tired I’m missing things like this.  Good night to all.

Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #168 on: November 26, 2013, 01:45:22 PM »
Gus, according to the Lyman Black Powder Hand Book, the load I used makes mention of a 48.53" drop at 200 yards.  This may explain the lost (12 inches of hold over)?  If so, no wonder the book never seemed quite on for my shooting purposes?

Wade, I think it would be fun to revive this in 200 yard shooting in the Spring. :)

CS,

OK, went back and re-read this post once I was not so tired.  Grin.

Wow, a drop of 48.5 inches at 200 yards seems like a LOT of drop even for a Round Ball at that range.  However, I went back to the drop table Dan posted on page 5 and that showed a drop of just over 40 inches at that range for what I think was a .50 or .54 caliber.  So the drop you mentioned from the Lyman book was probably a good estimated drop. 

This next part gets confusing to me to describe, so I hope I don’t butcher it too much.  Grin.

There is a difference between the bullet drop of when a rifle barrel is level to the ground and when we use sights.  Bullet drop tables NORMALLY mean when a rifle barrel is level to the ground and when the ball exits the muzzle, the bullet immediately begins dropping due to the force of gravity.  When we use sights, we are elevating the muzzle a bit depending on the range we sight in at.  With the elevated muzzle and even with gravity working on the ball as soon as it exits the muzzle, the ball “rises” to the area on the target we are aiming at.  Normally, the ball is still rising as it goes through the target and after it reaches its maximum elevation, it begins to fall and somewhere downrange, it once again would hit a target in the same place we sight our rifles in for and then fall still further as the ball travels even further until it hits the ground.  Now isn’t THAT confusing?  Grin.  Let’s see if an example can make it easier to understand.

In the military, we were always taught that a rough sight-in for BattleSight Zero was done at the 1,000 inch range or roughly just a bit under 28 yards.  What was great about this was if you received a different rifle in combat zone or never had a chance to zero it before, a relatively SHORT range could be used to get a rough zero on your rifle.  Where the strike of the bullet hit on the 1,000 inch range target when the bullet was still climbing, was roughly equal to where it would FALL down to at about 225 yards downrange.  (Now that is not as good of a Battlesight Zero taken from the 300 yard prone firing position, of course, but it was a DARN site better than having no Battlesight Zero on your rifle at all ! ) 

Round balls traveling at about 1900 FPS at the muzzle are much slower than say a .30 caliber modern bullet traveling at about 2,750 FPS.  Round balls are also not as efficient going through the atmosphere as elongated bullets.  So when you sight in a Round Ball rifle at 25 yards when the ball is still rising, it will fall down to that point at a much closer distance downrange than a modern .30 caliber round.  If you sight in at 50 or 100 yards when the ball is still rising, it will go further before the ball drops back down to that point downrange. 

What I’m getting at is I believe the bullet drop mentioned in the Lyman book is from a rifle barrel that is parallel to the ground. UNLESS it states at what range the rifle is sighted-in at.  That would give more drop than what you experience with a rifle sighted in for 25 or 50 yards.
Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #169 on: November 26, 2013, 04:24:58 PM »
Morning Gus,

Well, on page 174 of the Lyman Black Powder Handbook, under the heading of (C. Effects of Uphill and Downhill Shooting), the book does address this.  Whether or not their testing was done on a completely level range, I don't know?  I would assume it was since they were doing comprehensive data testing.

Getting back to head shots...  Since you've studied the riflemen of the ARW, is their any reports of when the riflemen opened fire on the British lines, and at what distance?  I ask because if riflemen opened fire when the British were moving into formation at (let's say) 2 to 4 ranks deep, perhaps the ball was passing over the front ranks and making "head shot" in the rear ranks?  To target an enemy's head, IMHO is simply a low percentage shot.  Using the head of your enemy as a center point for hold over makes much more sense to me then anything else.  That ball dropping into an enemy's - chest, belly, thigh, arm, or leg, still takes them out of action.

From what I've been given to understand, riflemen's sights were "fine" which I take to mean low since (again from what I'm given to understand) surviving rifles from the ARW, have low sights.  To bad one of these rifles can't be investigated to determine not only the range they were sighted for, but their load as well.  It's very possible one of these rifles (IMHO) has a "ring" developed in the bore from where the ball was seated on the charge.

Always a pleasure reading your post's, Gus. :)
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #170 on: November 27, 2013, 03:42:05 AM »
CS,

Unfortunately, there is very little to no information on what distance/s Riflemen opened fire during the ARW.  Heck, there is darn little information on what distances infantrymen and artillery opened fire in most battles, so that is not unexpected. The account of George Roger’s Clark’s Riflemen moving within 120 yards of Fort Sackville at Vincennes (Now Indiana) and some getting within 30 yards of the fort before opening fire is one of the rare instances the range was mentioned in an overall general way

The number of British Ranks used in the ARW was ordered by General Clinton (after he took over as the Commander of all British forces in April 1778) to be “Loose Order” which meant just two ranks and each soldier was about a foot and a little more apart.  That order remained if effect until the end of the war.  Prior to that, the normal order was three ranks, where/when it could be done by the lay of the land on the battlefields.  So the first major battle they probably used “Loose Order” was the Battle of Monmouth on 28 June 1778.   The Hessians remained in the normal “Continental” formations of three ranks deep with only a few inches between soldiers, though, until late in the war when they also adopted the “Loose Order.”  I’m not sure if it is known when that was. 

Now of course this is a LOT of generalizing and not exactly true in all points for all British Forces in each and every battle.  “Light Troops” used the two rank formations even before Clinton ordered it overall, though the Light Troops were normally made up of only one company from each Regiment.  That is a generalization, also, because sometimes they reinforced the “Light Companies” with one or two companies of the “Regular Infantry” Companies of a Regiment/s when the British felt the Light Troops needed the support.  (I’m REALLY not trying to be confusing, though it may seem like it.  Grin.)

Legend has it that the primary targets of the American Riflemen were British Officers or at least they were ordered to shoot Officers first, when they could.  Of course, there wasn’t always an Officer to shoot at.  Lower ranked Officers were in the British Ranks and could be identified by either the Gold or Silver trim on their uniforms.  Higher ranked Officers were at the side of the formations or immediately behind them.  The Highest Ranked Officers were back far enough they could see how most of their forces were deployed and where they could order changes of their forces during the battle.  I think that the Highest Ranked British Officers were often out of sight of American Riflemen or just too far away to reliably hit them.  So, perhaps the most common target for American Riflemen was Junior British Officers in the ranks.  If a shot missed them, it might hit a soldier beside them or behind them. 

I personally believe the mention of “the Best American Riflemen” being able to reliably hit a head size target at 200 yards (whether or not they REALLY could have reliably done it)  was meant as their accuracy potential and not that they actually tried to hit the heads of British Officers.  American Riflemen would surely have known how difficult it would have been to hit an enemy in the head at that range DURING a battle. 

Though I can not document this, I DO believe American Rifleman AIMED at the Heads or even the Hats of Officers and other opposing soldiers, when the opposing soldiers were far enough away.  This because it is a natural “finer” aiming point for the rifle balls to drop into the torso of the opposing soldiers when they were between say 150 and 200 yards.   This comes from actual experience on my part and that of many tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Marines and Soldiers over the years.

On the annual rifle requalification courses, both Marines and Soldiers shoot at various types of silhouette targets.  Marines shoot at what we call “Dog Targets” for the rapid fire stages at 200 and 300 yards.  That target is a silhouette of the upper half of a man (what one may have to shoot at when an enemy is laying down) and though at 26” wide, it is wider than a man’s torso and arms at say 22” on average.  Our 500 yard target is a full silhouette 40 inches tall (including the head) and 20 inches wide.  (This one is actually a really good approximation of an enemy’s head down to the bottom of his torso.)  Now we are initially taught to aim at the bottom of each target to sight in and fire, but MANY Marines have figured out a BETTER aiming point for both targets is the bottom of the head because you can draw a finer “bead” on that part of the target or IOW, the front sight is about the correct thickness to easily center on the bottom of the head.  This is true with modern US Rifles from the M1903 right up to the M16A2.  When using the bottom of the head as your aiming point, individual scores go up and in the case of experienced shooters, it is easy to shoot perfect scores at 200 and 300 yards and for the most experienced shooters, to easily shoot a perfect score at 500 yards.  Of course a perfect score on the Dog Targets would mean MOST of your shots would hit an enemy at 200 and 300 yards, while a perfect score at 500 yards means ALL your shots would hit an enemy at that range IF the enemy was not moving. 

I have never fired the Army Rifle Qualification course with pop up silhouettes, so I can not make exact statements about it.  I have asked Soldiers who I knew were good shooters and they told me they also used the head of the silhouette to aim at, as well when at around 200 to 300 yards.  The Army quit firing at 500 yards in the 60’s and their furthest silhouette they shoot at is either 300 or 360 yards by some reports. 

Now with the “fine” front sights we normally see on original Longrifles, it would also be easy to shoot at the base of the enemy soldiers head or the center of the head and that gives a better aiming point and that transfers to better hit potential.  This is why I believe that is where they aimed at 150 – 200 yards along with the fact it allowed for bullet drop into the torso of an enemy.

Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #171 on: November 27, 2013, 04:28:29 AM »
Hello Gus,

I agree completely with your analysis;

"I personally believe the mention of “the Best American Riflemen” being able to reliably hit a head size target at 200 yards (whether or not they REALLY could have reliably done it)  was meant as their accuracy potential and not that they actually tried to hit the heads of British Officers."

"I have never fired the Army Rifle Qualification course with pop up silhouettes, so I can not make exact statements about it.  I have asked Soldiers who I knew were good shooters and they told me they also used the head of the silhouette to aim at, as well when at around 200 to 300 yards."

This is true, at least in my case.  I qualified as Expert (USA) in 1974 at Ft. Jackson, SC, and re'qualified as Expert once again at Ft. Riley, KS in 1976.  What would be perceived as the "chin" area was my point of aim on the pop ups.

That was a long time ago... :)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2013, 04:30:32 AM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #172 on: November 27, 2013, 07:36:34 AM »
If the "look" angie is steep enough, either up hill of down it effectively reduces the range the bullet "sees" in relation gravity.
So while the bullet may travel 400 yards its range effected by gravity may be 1/3 less if the angle is steep.

So far as at what range they opened fire in the 18th c?
The man at Breeds Hill shot for 15 minutes with people handing him loaded "muskets" (had to be rifles but the British officer who detailed this said muskets), before an English unit killed him with volley fire. The officer was of the opinion that this one man standing on a parapet killed most of the officers and NCOs at that fight.
So how far did the British advance in 15 minutes, did they advance the whole time or was this guy shooting as they were forming up? We don't know and we are not going to find out.
  That orders were issued in some commands not to shoot past 150 yards tells me that they were shooting beyond this distance. 150 yards is also used as a distance in the late 1750s when the writer was discussion arms he would prefer for an indian fight. Stating he would rather shoot something that would allow him to put a ball within 6" or a foot of point of aim at 150 than a smoothbore which would not hit a 2 ft x 6ft board at that distance. So we are at 150 yards again.

Its a common theme I think because its an easy distance. Any reasonably accurate rifle will hit a man at 150 yards even a 36 cal will do this. This is about 2.5 times the effective range of the typical musket armed infantryman in the 18th c.  A rifleman prone or behind a wall or tree would have to be EXTREMELY unlucky to be killed by a musket ball at 150 yards unless the shooter was aiming at someone else. A group of riflemen shooting from cover could shoot 2-3 shots if they started at 200 yards before the infantry even got within range. If you have 20 good riflemen and shoot one shot at 150 and another at 100 they could take out almost 1/2 an infantry company of the time and shoot an officer or two off his horse in the bargain.
I can't believe this has run on this long.
People need to go shoot their rifles or at least do some reading and stop typing for awhile because while some good points have been brought up, typing is not going to answer the question of the accuracy of rifles in 1776.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #173 on: November 27, 2013, 09:46:31 AM »
Dan,

Do you have a reference or link about the man firing for 15 minutes?  The reason I ask is that SOUNDS like he was one of the American Marksmen/snipers who fired at the British from Charlestown prior to the British advance up Breed’s Hill.  This caused the British ships to fire on Charlestown and send a landing party in to set it ablaze.

It is possible the American Marksman fired from the fortifications on Breed’s Hill, BUT if so, he did not begin firing until the British were within 50 yards when General Putnam ordered the first firing.  That’s still musket range. 

Most accounts say that American General Putnam did not ALLOW his men to fire until the Brit’s got within 50 yards of the American fortifications.  Again, Musket range.

Colonel, later Major General, John Stark was allowed to choose his position when he and his New Hampshire men came to Breed’s Hill as reinforcements.  He saw the British might attack the American flank, so chose that ground.  Now, this is interesting.  He had STAKES driven into the ground 100 FEET (33 yards) from his position and ordered his men not to fire until the Brits got past that line.  Again, Musket range.

Further, the Americans who fought at Breed’s Hill were all New England troops/militia to whom the rifle was almost unknown. 
 
Now “anything is possible” and there MIGHT have been one or a few rifles there, but it is highly unlikely even a few rifles were used there.

Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #174 on: November 27, 2013, 09:58:02 AM »
Dan,

No doubt American Riflemen were firing at more than 150 yards and MISSING so much they were ordered not to fire beyond that range.

You wrote:  “A group of riflemen shooting from cover could shoot 2-3 shots if they started at 200 yards before the infantry even got within range. If you have 20 good riflemen and shoot one shot at 150 and another at 100 they could take out almost 1/2 an infantry company of the time and shoot an officer or two off his horse in the bargain.”

I don’t discount that as not being possible, but do you have accounts of what battles that happened?  The reason I ask is because it seems you are suggesting something that was ordinary and I really would like to know where/what battles that actually happened. 
Gus