Author Topic: Rifle Accuracy 1776  (Read 99291 times)

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #25 on: September 17, 2013, 05:31:57 PM »
;D  @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.


I figure it like this: Their supply of weapons (though state of the art at the time) probably wasn't nearly so consistently well-made as ours are (though replicas of antiquity) these days.  Which boiled down very neatly means to me that the "off-the-rack" gun back then was less likely than ours to be capable of great accuracy.

It always takes a marksman to make such shots with any regularity, but we don't have to start over working up a new load with every batch of powder we buy these days either. 

Our equipment* and powder tends to be better, whereas they tended to shoot more and with more motivation i would say. 

*speaking of our small world of enthusiasts, not the production-gun consumers.

But if a rifle maker made inaccurate rifles he did not stay in business long. At least not riflemaking. Rifle matches were VERY common until about the time of WW-I when we became increasingly urbanized. So a rifle that did not shoot was not well regarded any more than it is today.
Its not that hard to make a good rifle barrel with 18th c technology.
Its all to easy to assume that everything in the past was crude or poorly made by modern standards. it reality often the reverse is true. For example some of the locks we have available today while made of modern materials show an amazing lack of workmanship or even understanding of how they are really supposed to function. Compare a well made forged spring to a cast one of the same dimensions (actually the forged spring can be much thinner. There really is no comparison.
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline WadePatton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5277
  • Tennessee
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2013, 06:33:17 PM »
;D  @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.


I figure it like this: Their supply of weapons (though state of the art at the time) probably wasn't nearly so consistently well-made as ours are (though replicas of antiquity) these days.  Which boiled down very neatly means to me that the "off-the-rack" gun back then was less likely than ours to be capable of great accuracy.

It always takes a marksman to make such shots with any regularity, but we don't have to start over working up a new load with every batch of powder we buy these days either. 

Our equipment* and powder tends to be better, whereas they tended to shoot more and with more motivation i would say. 

*speaking of our small world of enthusiasts, not the production-gun consumers.

But if a rifle maker made inaccurate rifles he did not stay in business long. At least not riflemaking. Rifle matches were VERY common until about the time of WW-I when we became increasingly urbanized. So a rifle that did not shoot was not well regarded any more than it is today.
Its not that hard to make a good rifle barrel with 18th c technology.
Its all to easy to assume that everything in the past was crude or poorly made by modern standards. it reality often the reverse is true. For example some of the locks we have available today while made of modern materials show an amazing lack of workmanship or even understanding of how they are really supposed to function. Compare a well made forged spring to a cast one of the same dimensions (actually the forged spring can be much thinner. There really is no comparison.
Dan

Yes, I get your points Dan.  And really i'm just comparing Production Guns against the "hand-mades" that are prevalent around "here".   Modern Production Guns are all over the place in accuracy, most requiring some attention before they shoot "up to their potential".  Maybe i should not assume such a divide between Production Arms and Custom Shop goods.   Yeah, I went Apples/Pears a little bit. 

oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions.  Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith?  Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps? 
Hold to the Wind

Online Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15087
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2013, 06:47:28 PM »
All good stuff on long range shooting - Robby - Taylor's .62 Hawken had a white wear line in the browning from rubbing against the bench when loading - at the Squamish R&G club where we shot (at) 'The Chief'.  That 3/8" or 1/2" wide 'rub mark' looked like a thin line when held over the rear sight and just happened to be perfectly 'situated' for the 325yard target.  Place the blade in the middle of the rock and shoot - puff - off the rock.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9359
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2013, 06:55:30 PM »
It is recorded in Maj.Roberts book,"The Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle that the rifles of N.G.Whitmore were declared to be "unfair competition" in some matches in the American Northeast. The presentation rifle made by Whitmore for General Grant was tested at 110 yards and every shot would have hit the lid of a percussion cap box. This rifle I have seen and it is a small,under eight pounds hunting/offhand type and I would say it had Whitmore's fine 12 groove,gain twist rifling.Whitmore's rifles were famed for their superb accuracy and WHY none of our barrel makers today won't at least try to copy this man's proven work is beyond me.The Grant rifle was a "picket ball"gun and these odd little bullets must be loaded with much care or anything resembling accuracy would not be seen.Harry Pope's gain twist was a !:16 start and ended in a 1:15.75 and were eight grooves.I can't say from experience that the 12 grooves were any better but the recorded performances spoke loud enough so as experimentation should be tried in our times. I tried to get Bill Large to try it but Bill was closer to the end of his career than I realized to try it even though he seemed to be interested.Perhaps he saw no need for it in ordinary round ball barrels.

Bob Roller

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2013, 07:46:11 PM »


;D  @ Jerry and the deaf groundhog above what eventually walked into a leaden raindrop.


Yes, I get your points Dan.  And really i'm just comparing Production Guns against the "hand-mades" that are prevalent around "here".   Modern Production Guns are all over the place in accuracy, most requiring some attention before they shoot "up to their potential".  Maybe i should not assume such a divide between Production Arms and Custom Shop goods.   Yeah, I went Apples/Pears a little bit. 

oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions.  Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith?  Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps? 

I was not speaking to modern production guns. They are very seldom even on my radar. And many shoot very well.
So far as the accuracy thing.... The case cited by Bob is a rare one.
There are always gun owners, shooters and riflemen.
I have a pretty pricey and very accurate rifle barrel that is routinely outshot by a friend with a really accurate rifle with a factory made barrel that cost 25% of what the custom barrel did, worse I sold the rifle to him. Making the lash for my own back so to speak. But much of this is eyesight. If my friend had either rifle he would be very difficult to out shoot.
Family history tells me that my great-grandfather was not allowed to shoot his own rifle in matches in 19th c Arkansas.  I have no idea if this is true or not but thats how its come down to me.

I have a production brass suppository rifle that is hard to beat at 400 by rifles with scopes that cost more than my entire outfit but I have problems at 100 so I need to find a load for 100. Or refine my shooting.
The hard core shooters do not subscribe to nit picky rules and such. You bring what you have and shoot it. Be it a ML match or something more modern. I love the shooting and the competition. Win or lose I have a good time. Competition with teach the shooter a great deal about his rifle and all other aspects of the use of the rifle.

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

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2013, 09:25:12 PM »
Given a man size target at 200 yards, a good shot should be able to lob a ball into that target just from his/her everyday knowledge of the use of their muzzle loading rifle.  300 yards should not be out of the question either on a man size target.  I've hit the 55 gallon drum that use to set out at our range's 300 yard berm many a times.  Just hitting your enemy anywhere on their body will do damage and send quite a message to those that thought they may have been safely out of range.

If I recall (and I may be wrong about this), didn't Murphy hit the General on his second or perhaps third shot?
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

John A. Stein

  • Guest
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2013, 04:11:21 AM »
  galudwig and Rkymtn57--Find  your nearest DAR Chapter and you may get the information you are looking for--They have tons of information about RW participants. To become a member of the DAR an applicant has to submit a veritable family tree proving they are a descendant of a RW veteran. Good Luck

Offline Pete G.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2013, 01:56:16 AM »


oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions.  Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith?  Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps? 
[/quote]

A golden opportunity. Mr X signs the rifle Mr Y and sells it for twice as much..... :o :o :o

Offline SR James

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2013, 07:19:51 AM »
I recently acquired a .54 Ozark Mtn Arms Hawken with no barrel sights. I installed a set of Hawkwn type sights and headed to the range. At 50m the gun was shooting about 8" low but I was working on getting good groups prior to worrying about elevation.  The gun liked 85 gr of Goex 2f with a .530 ball. With the impact still 8" low at 50m I tried a shot at the 18" gong at 200m and missed.  No visible bullet strike suggested the ball impacted low in the grassy slope of the berm. I held up more front sight and smacked the gong with the second shot. If you shoot these guns enough, 200-300 yard shots aren't all that difficult given reasonable wind conditions

Rkymtn57

  • Guest
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2013, 04:03:15 PM »
Any thoughts on keeping these 18th century rifles barrels  rust and pit free , thru
constant outdoor exposure during 3 campaign seasons .  Could you do it ?
What do you believe the level of knowledge was as to the importantance of it ?
They had to be the most valuable , expensive and important piece of equipment owned. DD






Online Frank

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2013, 08:18:08 PM »
We have an 18 inch circular plate set up at 130 yards at the range and many of us hit it consistently offhand. Once you know your elevation you can hit it every time.

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2013, 10:09:11 PM »
Any thoughts on keeping these 18th century rifles barrels  rust and pit free , thru
constant outdoor exposure during 3 campaign seasons .  Could you do it ?
What do you believe the level of knowledge was as to the importantance of it ?
They had to be the most valuable , expensive and important piece of equipment owned. DD

I really doubt it was much different then from today.  I've seen those who pamper their smoke pole, and those that (what I would call) abuse their smoke pole.

The firearm was just an extention of the, sword, spear, bow, blunt instruments, and for them to all work effectively, they had to remain rust free (maybe not so much the blunt instrument's and bows (except cross bows), but I think the heritage of keep your hunting and battle weapons in good working order was passed down through the ages.
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2013, 10:12:19 PM »
We have an 18 inch circular plate set up at 130 yards at the range and many of us hit it consistently offhand. Once you know your elevation you can hit it every time.

We use to shoot at a round 24 inch circular gong as well, that was hung out at 200 yards during some of our matches.  It wasn't that difficult to hit.  Knowing how to read your shooting conditions is everything.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2013, 10:13:09 PM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2013, 06:15:03 AM »


oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions.  Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith?  Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps? 

A golden opportunity. Mr X signs the rifle Mr Y and sells it for twice as much..... :o :o :o
[/quote]

Just how many times? And where did you read this?
Why would someone pay good money for an inferior rifle?
If this were true people like Horace Warner, Perry and a number of others would never have shot in matches. There were  a lot of good makers who made very accurate rifles.
Now Horace Warner made a 69 caliber slug gun that was so accurate that nobody would shoot against it. Or so I have been told.

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

Offline David R. Pennington

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2886
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #39 on: September 25, 2013, 06:00:52 AM »
On maintaining rifles in the field. I know black powder is still made with the same ingredients as it was back then and is corrosive then as now. I also know wrought iron is not as prone to rust as steel, but at any rate I'm sure reasonable care would have to have been exerted to maintain a shoot able accurate rifle. I've also never shot a rifle with a wrought barrel nor ever cleaned one with tow.   
VITA BREVIS- ARS LONGA

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #40 on: September 25, 2013, 06:19:10 AM »
On maintaining rifles in the field. I know black powder is still made with the same ingredients as it was back then and is corrosive then as now. I also know wrought iron is not as prone to rust as steel, but at any rate I'm sure reasonable care would have to have been exerted to maintain a shoot able accurate rifle. I've also never shot a rifle with a wrought barrel nor ever cleaned one with tow.   

If the accuracy started to fail the rifle was then freshed to restore it. This was done to one of the Officers rifles (Clark's i thing, too lazy to confirm) during the L&C expedition by Shields when its accuracy degraded. This restored its shooting qualities.
This was common as was re breeching, back farther than many like to think of the rifle being common in the Colonies.

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

Rkymtn57

  • Guest
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #41 on: September 25, 2013, 01:02:50 PM »
Very interesting thoughts guys , Thank you, DD

Kenny

  • Guest
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2013, 03:01:56 AM »
Guy`s, Thank you... This site is awesome. I remember walking into the trading post when it was in the back of a gas station at 9yrs old. I saw a navy arms .45 "Kentucky rifle ;D" hanging on the wall and just had to have it. My dad bought it and I paid him back every week out of my "first mate" money on the lobster boat. It was a cap lock and I shot that thing every day.... I had no idea about adjusting sights or "working up a load". I put in what the salesman told me to for powder... my point is, I could hit a chick-a-dee at 50 yds with this thing. I had to aim to the right and just learned from constant shooting how high or low to shoot at different ranges. Ignorance was bliss! I used this gun for everything.... Deer, bear, rabbits, squirrels, partridge, Chick-a-dee`s( I know... But I was just a kid ::) ). Point is, I used it everyday and learned how, where to hold for every circumstance. I think that , from what I`ve read and hear, some(most? ) guys back in 1775 may have had a similar experience and intimate knowledge of their firearm. Thanks to this site and you guys I have built from scratch a flinter from the 1760`s era. I don't shoot half as good as I used to with a much superior rifle. I think I may have learned myself into non- accuracy  ;D
Kenny

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2013, 04:09:13 AM »
Kenny, I use fixed iron sights and center them with a caliper then use Kentucky windage from there.  It's amazing  what both front & rear centered sights can achieve.  As long as you know your rifle's sighting quirks, you're there.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 09:56:16 PM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Pete G.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2013, 01:31:37 AM »


oh and also, I've seen it noted many times that "Mr. X Gunsmith's" guns were so good that they were prohibited in local competitions.  Well, does that sell more or less guns for Mr. X Gunsmith?  Does he go up because they're that good, or does he just lose the local market for guys who like to shoot comps? 

A golden opportunity. Mr X signs the rifle Mr Y and sells it for twice as much..... :o :o :o

Just how many times? And where did you read this?
Why would someone pay good money for an inferior rifle?
If this were true people like Horace Warner, Perry and a number of others would never have shot in matches. There were  a lot of good makers who made very accurate rifles.
Now Horace Warner made a 69 caliber slug gun that was so accurate that nobody would shoot against it. Or so I have been told.

Dan
[/quote]

Doesn't have to be very many. Sell a few inferior rifles with a well known name on them and then move on. The Colonel warned "Beware of copies and counterfeits", and there were many thosands of spurious "derringers" sold to unsuspecting buyers. Not all that glitters is gold, and there are many willing to take advantage of the gullible.

Offline heelerau

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2013, 04:00:33 PM »
 I have been shooting since about the age of 5, and one of the earlieast things my late father told me at the time, "beware the man with only one gun. chances are he will know how to use it "  I have been using rifles with fixed sights for years and have learned to aim off.   Have not had a chance to shoot my long rifles at 200yds plus as yet, for no other reason than just not gotten around to it. This site has initrigued me with the thought of trying some long shots, so when time and opportunity permit, will have a go and report back here what happened. Have done some long range shooting with a PH Navy rifle, with bare minnie bullet and have hit a small gong pretty regular at 300 yds I know its not a round ball, but still open sights, and still had to aim off some to the right. and have been using that rifle since I was 14, am now 52.


Cheers

Gordon
Keep yor  hoss well shod an' yor powdah dry !

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2013, 03:47:32 AM »
My dad use to tell me the same thing, Gordon.  As I approach 58 years old, I have my favorite flintlock and cap lock rifle's, two I shoot almost exclusively.  Still, I have a soft spot for the rest.  I guess what I'm getting at is that we have a lot more choices today then our ancestors had.  Most had to make do with one rifle.  They knew it like the back of their hand.

Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2013, 07:57:41 AM »
Part I

I have often wondered how much the “legendary” accuracy of the rifle in 1776 had to do with how inaccurate the period Military Musket was?  Of course I’m talking in comparison to the “King’s Arm” that we today call the Brown Bess, because that was the musket the majority of British Americans (Colonial Americans) would have compared rifles against until the French started supplying Muskets in the mid Rev War period. 

Here were some of the major “period problems” with Brown Bess Musket accuracy:

1.  Bore size.  While the bore was usually known/recorded as “.75 cal” and in a very few instances .76 cal., testing done on original muskets in the Tower and more recently the Royal Armouries in Leeds of original muskets show the bore sizes actually ranged from .76 cal. to .80 cal. 

2.  Ball size.  The standard ball size for the paper wrapped cartridges averaged .67 to .69 caliber.  Though the wadded up paper wrapped cartridges took care of some of the “windage” or difference in the ball to bore size, that meant the ball size to bore size varied from “as little as” .070” to as much as .130.”   That alone would have greatly harmed uniform accuracy.  (Side note:  For many years in this country, excavated musket balls were incorrectly described as “French” due to their size being small enough to fit French Muskets.  This was corrected in areas such bullets were found and ONLY British Muskets were used and by checking some original molds.)

3.  Trigger Pull Weight.  I specifically asked members of the British International Muzzle Loading Team at two World Championships at Wedgnock, UK in the mid 90’s if they had checked trigger pulls on the original muskets, as they had checked bore sizes.  They admitted they had not and most probably because most shooters have the trigger pulls lessened for International Shooting, even on original firearms.  The British Team members most familiar with original Brown Bess muskets estimated the average trigger pull at 10 lbs or more.  My own testing of reproduction Brown Bess muskets shows they average 10 to 14 lb trigger pulls.  Even a 10 lb trigger is a LOT to fight against when trying to get the best accuracy. 

4.  The way the trigger was pulled.  Even though British and American troops were beginning to be taught to AIM during the French and Indian War and was common practice in the American Revolution, the problem of inherent inaccuracy came about when they fired in volleys.  To get those nice, crisp, military sounding volley fires where the volley sounds like one musket being fired – DEMANDS every soldier JERK THE DICKENS out of the trigger.  That inevitably results in shooting HIGH and often right over top of the opposing soldiers UNLESS one “aims” at the crotch or even the knees (at close range) of the opposing soldier.  As late as the American Civil War, volley firing continued to throw shots over the heads of opposing soldiers MOST of the time. 

No wonder period accounts say that maximum Musket Range was 60 to no more than 80 yards to reliably hit an opposing soldier and that may have only been a hit in the leg or arm!!!

I spent 23 years of doing “trigger jobs” on original and reproduction Un-Civil War guns at the Spring and Fall National Championships for the North South Skirmish Association.  Here are the average weights of trigger pull on original guns:  British Enfield Rifle Muskets 8 to 10 lbs, Springfield and American made rifle muskets 10 to 12 lbs, Pattern 1816/22 muskets 10 to 14 lbs, Smith Carbines 18 to 27 lbs.  Now compare that to the M1 Garand or M14 trigger pull weight of 4 ½ to 7 ½ lbs where most rifles averaged 5 ½ to 6 ½ lbs when new.  Springfield M1903 rifles averaged 4 to 5 lbs.  When one gets a trigger on a musket or rifled musket down to a RELIABLE 4 lb trigger, the difference in feel and accuracy potential is SUBSTANTIAL.

What I don’t know is the “average” trigger pull weight of an original American Long Rifle that did not have a set trigger of some sort.  Not even sure if we can come up with an average.  However, if the average trigger pull was 4 to 5 lbs, then that gives a substantial advantage in practical accuracy to a Longrifle user. 

Gus

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2013, 05:13:11 PM »
As I have stated before there are surviving targets from the early 19th c shot with a FL rifle are are "comparable" to what a hunting weight rifle would do today. There are rifles made on essentially the same equipment as 200 years ago that are very accurate and I am not sure from the accuracy stand point the material used is better and in fact I doubt in many cases it is. Read Dillon and Cline.
It goes back to the quality of the barrel, the care taken in making it and the person loading and shooting it.
We have numerous description of the rifles accuracy from Colonial times. Read Huddleston's book "Colonial Riflemen" and "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse.
There is discussion of Musket accuracy and attempts to improve in in the 19th c in "Firearms of The American West 1803-1865" by Garavaglia and Worman.


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

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9758
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2013, 06:50:02 PM »
"Knowing" a round ball rifle.
A 45 to 54 caliber rb rifle loaded to about 1/2 ball weight of powder will shoot close  enough to the same trajectory for military purposes to 200 yards.
When reading the accounts of the Breeds Hill fight there was one rifleman standing on a rampart being handed rifles. He was shooting officers and non-coms for 15 minutes (from a Bristish officers account) before being killed by the Royal Welsh Fusillers or some such when they finally got close enough and this took a volley.
So we have to ask the question, how far did the British advance during that time and how many shots did he fire with the rifles being handed to him? 300 yards?  How close did the enemy get before killing him? He certainly did not seem to fear them shooting at him, at least not enough. It is possible that this one rifleman (and he could have been nothing else) may have killed the majority of the British officers and Non-coms that were killed there and likely at ranges out to 200 yards at least. So many were killed that they discarded their regalia denoting their rank until the end of the War. It is really doubtful that all these rifles, maybe only 6 or 10, were the same caliber or even stock design. A good shot is a good shot. No matter how many guns he might own. Don't matter what a poor shot has its not going to be as consistent as it would be in the hands of an expert shot with 20-15 vision.

By the time of the American Revolution making rifles was well understood it never ceases to amaze me that we moderns are so ready to believe that our forefathers were somehow dumber or less capable  than we are.
Example: The modern milling machine and lathe dates to the 1840s-50s when Robbins, Lawrence and probably Nicandor Kendall developed them to make firearms. They remained largely unchanged in function until the advent of the computer controlled machines.
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine