Rifle Accuracy 1776

[Canute Rex]

Artificer, I have looked at Brown Bess muskets in the Tower of London and other British museums. Most of them had muzzle openings worn into ovals and the buttons on the ramrods were worn to nubs. The shooter of such might as well have been blindfolded. Compared to one of those even a well bored smooth rifle would have seemed like a laser beam.

That said, Dan is spot on - it's all about the inside of the barrel. A skilled gunmaker can make a true bore with a good eye and some basic tools. Nothing new under the sun there. All we can do today is make them faster.

[mbush50]

Dan,
Thank you. You said it well, with knowing your rifle and being a good shot.  Anyone that is a good shot makes it all look easy!

Michael

[Artificer]

Part II

Period Accuracy of the Long Rifle.

Was it Dan that mentioned the use of a bullet board for loading and Hessian troops using them to cut patches?  I read it and now can’t find it.  My apology.  I am not disputing it, but where is that recorded? 

Gary Brumfield noted in this forum that 18th century gunsmiths could bore and polish a barrel that was within one or two thousandths of an inch of the ball size.  Though I don’t remember him specifically stating it, I have to assume that they started by making the ball mold and then used a ball cast from that mold to check when they bored and polished the barrel.  So we know the “windage” in those barrels was held to a pretty tight tolerance considering they did not have precision measuring instruments.

The next consideration is what metal was the barrel made from and we know in the period it was usually iron.  Though I don’t know of scientific testing done on iron barrels, I speculate they had better harmonic vibration than period steel barrels and that would have made them more accurate, though they would have worn out more and had to be “refreshed” or “re-cut” sooner than steel barrels.

We seem to know far, far less about the materials they used for patches, though it has come down they used cloth or even thin leather. 

The problem with period cloth was how tightly was it woven and how uniformly thick was it?   Too thin or less tightly woven cloth would have “burned through” the patch  then just as it does today and not given as good of accuracy.  More tightly woven and more uniform thickness cloth was available from imports from Europe India and even the orient: but how much would they have varied in thickness from time to time the Riflemen could/did acquire it?  Period Riflemen had no precise way to test thickness and perhaps they bought a tiny piece of available cloth and tried it for accuracy in their rifle before they bought more?  This is pure speculation on my part, but I often wondered if when they found cloth that worked well in their rifles, did they buy a good bit of the cloth at one time to use for some time afterwards?  That’s how I would do it, but I’m not sure we will ever know. 

I really wonder if using leather for patch material was something reserved only for when they ran out of cloth?  Then, what kind of leather would have been thin enough without having to skive/thin it AND not a skin that was more valuable to trade as pelts?  Maybe squirrel or rabbit?  Yes, I know some accounts say “buckskin,” but traditional/period tanned deer skins just seem to be too thick when/if they had even a modestly tight fitting ball.  Could it be the period writers incorrectly identified other thinner skins as “buck skin” when writing about leather used to patch the balls?   

While we use a short starter today for a tight fitting ball/patch combination for the best accuracy, there seems to be no period accounts of a use of a short starter.  Or are there accounts of which I’ve never heard?

One rifle we DO have extensive accounts and documentation of is the Baker Rifle, though that came out 25 to 30 years after the Rev War.  Still, it was a flintlock and it used patched balls.  The rifling twist was different being ¼ turn in the 30 inch barrel or One turn in 120 inches.  Most were fitted with a rear sight sighted for 200 yards and at least the early ones also had a folding sight for 300 yards.   History International showed a Brit shooting an original Baker Rifle at 100, 200 and 300 yards Off Hand and he hit good torso shots on the targets with one shot each time.  That’s pretty good shooting. 

This makes me wonder at what ranges the American Longrifles were sighted for, at least during war time and did they shorten the front sights to get a “zero” at longer distances, such as was done on the Baker Rifle?  For those who are not familiar with the term, a “zero” is the sight settings or the way the sights are adjusted for a particular range with the rifle.  It would seem to me that it was done, at least to some degree, though I can not prove that.  Otherwise, it would have been MUCH more difficult to make the long distance shots that are recorded DURING the “Fog of War” or combination confusion, fear, adrenaline rush, excitement, etc., etc. that covers the battlefield and makes long distance shots more difficult.  With the sights adjusted for longer range, you just aim lower on the body when at short range and higher or just over the heads of the enemy when at longer ranges beyond the distance you sight in at.  Also, could this be a reason many original front sights on Long Rifles are shorter than what we use today?  (Yes, I know the reason most often cited for short front and rear sights is to supposedly make them faster to acquire in woods or low light, though I’m not sure that is true.)

Finally and though the source for this is after the Rev War, I found a VERY interesting period source for telling how far away a person was in one of my Civil War reference books.  I was researching the range and effectiveness of the .58 caliber rifle musket in the early 1980’s.  I came across a surprising reference that the sights were made to allow soldiers to effectively hit an enemy at 300 yards.  WOW, I thought, that is the same “Battle Sight Zero” we had been using since at least the M1 Garand, M14 and M16 rifles.  Of course, I had learned quite a few years earlier that in NSSA competition shot at 50 and 100 yards, that front sights were regularly built up or replaced with taller ones as the “Issue” front sight caused the rifles to shoot high even at 100 yards and WAY too high at 50 yards. 

What the book then gave was a way to tell how far away an enemy soldier was by how well you could define parts of the human body.  IE, if the enemy was 500 yards away, you can not distinguish his arms with the naked eye ball.  As the range got closer, you could distinguish the arms, then the hands and when much closer, the fingers.  Though the reference did not mention it, the old military slogan of “Don’t fire until you can see the whites of their eyes!” came to mind, because it is very close range when you can distinguish that on and enemy soldier.  OK, since I worked at Weapons Training Battalion and we had rifle ranges all over the place, I decided to test the information and it was a pretty good way to measure distance.  So I decided to share this information with the Scout Sniper Instructor School,  since it was only maybe 80 yards from where I worked in the Rifle and Pistol Team Repair Shop and we regularly conversed with them on the Model 40A1 Sniper Rifle and other things about long range shooting and improving the rifles we built for them.

So I typed up the information on a separate piece of paper and took it over to show the Instructors at the Scout Sniper Instructor School.  They had never heard of such a way to estimate range, but they were intrigued and also checked it out that afternoon at Range 1.  They called me later on that afternoon and said they were going to teach it because it was easy and it worked and WTH did I get that information?!!  I told them it came from a Civil War period training document.  The Instructor who called me groaned and said, “Some more of that Muzzle loading (stuff) again, huh?”  I said yes it was, but hadn’t their tests also confirmed it worked?  He chuckled and said, “Yep, it DOES work and we are going to teach it.”  Now, I have looked and looked through my library for the reference and I no longer have it.  Unfortunately, I loaned a BUNCH of my books out to others and it most probably was in books I never got back.  I don’t believe it noted who came up with the information and WHEN it was first used, though it was known well enough to get it through the Ultra Conservative Military Minds of the Civil War.  That suggests it was known for at least some time earlier, though I can’t prove it was known during the American Revolutionary War. 

To sum up, I DO believe period Flintlock Rifles had the accuracy potential to make shots that were recorded.  What I don’t know is how they got their rifles to shoot that well.

Gus

[Artificer]

Artificer, I have looked at Brown Bess muskets in the Tower of London and other British museums. Most of them had muzzle openings worn into ovals and the buttons on the ramrods were worn to nubs. The shooter of such might as well have been blindfolded. Compared to one of those even a well bored smooth rifle would have seemed like a laser beam.

Rex,

The British International Muzzleloading Shooters I spoke to also mentioned the muzzle wear on many of the Brown Besses in the museums.  They used long, precision inside calipers to measure the bores to get accurate readings on the guns with worn muzzles as well as guns in private collections that came from collections that had been on the walls of manor homes for years before they were sold in the last few decades. 

I was dreaming for months finally fulfilling my decades long desire of visiting the Tower to see the Arms Collection the first shoot I attended in ’96.  Imagine my great disappointment they had moved the collection to Leeds only a few years before and I had not known it until we walked into the Tower compound!  Actually, I was somewhat mollified by the rather large number of early military and sporting flintlocks with single bridle locks on display at Warwick Castle. 

Still, I was surprised that not one of the British Shooters used an original Brown Bess in the Miquelet Match for Original Military smooth-bore flintlock muskets.  They confirmed what members of the American Team had told me that they were not as accurate as the French Muskets.  That is also why they were always looking for and asking if any American Team member had a good shooting original M1816/22 musket for sale.  One grinned and told me they MUCH preferred a musket made “in their own colonies” and/or at least by an ENGLISH speaking country.  Grin.

Gus

[omark]

i have read a couple of references to americans shooting abilities. the first was supposed to be an excerpt from a letter sent to england by a brit officer. it was shortly before the war. he told his family that he hoped the current tensions did not lead to war because when the small american boys went out after the cows in the evening, they would carry rifles that were longer than they were tall and would usually bring supper back in the form of turkey, rabbit or some other small game.
   the other instance was an account by a brit officer that said he and his aide and courrier rode out to a small hilltop overlooking a mill. he and his aide were side by side facing the mill and the courrier was crosswise right behind them, all were horseback. an american ran out and lay down with his rifle and the officer commented they had better move as the americans were going to "amuse them selves at our expense". the american fired and the courrier stated his horse had been hit and was stepping off as the horse fell. the officer stated that his troops were "well secreted in the woods", so he wasnt shooting at them. this means the shot was to center of mass. the officer said he had crossed that area many times since then and "knew the distance to be well in excess of 400 yds".     mark

[Candle Snuffer]

"This makes me wonder at what ranges the American Longrifles were sighted for, at least during war time and did they shorten the front sights to get a “zero” at longer distances, such as was done on the Baker Rifle?"

My first thoughts of this question is, why would you worry about re'zeroing your rifle?  The one thing there was plenty of on the eastern seaboard back during the ARW, was trees, big trees.  It would not be that difficult to pick out a tree and tie a "flag" of sorts around it to designate the height and width of the average man back then, and commence shooting to see what hold over you would need to strike the enemy with your shot from several distances.

My gut instinct is that most the American Riflemen already had a good idea of how high to hold for the long shot's they may take, simply from hunting in the dense wooded area's and open meadows, before the war came along.  Some probably already knew from the French and Indian War.

I just don't see a rifleman filing his front sight down after he's used his muzzle loader for a very long time with the sights at the existing height they'd always been.

[Artificer]

Why file down a front sight?  It depends on how one has his rifle zero’d to begin with.

Shooting in woods is often a short range application, though shooting in meadows can be a long to very long range application.
Unless there is a tree or landmark behind something you are shooting at longer distances, getting the correct amount of “hold over” is chancy at best, though one normally had more error room for height on a standing soldier.

If one is going to take 300 or 400 yards shots with a round ball and expect to hit the enemy most of the time, there is going to be a lot more bullet drop than one experiences with a rifle sighted for short to mid ranges, IE 50 yards up to 100 yards.  Many rifles sighted dead on at 75 yards will be two to four inches low at 100 and way, WAY low at 200 to 300, let alone 400.  Actually this most likely explains why Riflemen in the American Revolution were ordered not to take long shots because they missed too often, as has been related in this thread once or twice and by the following anecdote.

“Light Horse Harry Lee, in later years, recalled that on Reedy Fork he had posted twenty five of Campbell's sharpshooters in an old log schoolhouse with chinking gone. These men could split an apple held on the point of a ramrod by a comrade 150 yards away. They were to fire on 'particular objects'. An important looking officer, later found to be Colonel Webster, was spotted on a fat horse, making slow progress in deep water. All the marksmen had a shot at him, seriatim, some reloading for a second try, all seeing, not believing, as horse and rider passed the stream unhurt.”
http://rockbridgeadvocate.com/odell/marches.htm

If one sights in a .50 rifle to be dead on at 125 yards with a .50 caliber bullet, it will drop over 2 feet at 200.  Chart #1- 50 caliber, 180 grain round ball at 1800 fps showing path of ball. Sight in at 125 yards. Load was 150 grains FFFg .
http://www.whitemuzzleloading.com/long_range_muzzleloading.htm

Holding a little high to shoot an apple off a ramrod at 150 yards would not be a huge feat if the rifle was sighted at 125 yards.  I honestly don’t know how far the bullet will drop further at 300 and 400 yards, though it surely was enough to make “hold over” estimates difficult at best. 

Now going back to the Baker Rifle, they were sighted at 200 yards and had a flip up sight for 300 yards.  The shooter on the History International Channel took ONE shot each at 100, 200 and 300 yards STANDING (Yes, that’s offhand and not laying down and resting the rifle on something as noted that American Riflemen usually did at long range) and all were first round hits in the torso area of a man.   That demonstrates two things:  1. A .62 caliber flintlock rifle sighted for 200 yards is not difficult to hit a man size target at 100 in the torso.  2.  Since the Baker has a flip up rear sight, the shooter could use the SAME height front sight and hit the torso of a man while STANDING at 300 yards.  That is an excellent shot from a skilled marksman. 

Now, if one is going to change the zero of a rifle that is sighted in at 125 yards to 200 yards or more, you either have to file down the front sight or put a taller rear sight in place.  Since filing down the front sight is easier than replacing the rear sight in an 18th century military context, that’s why I mentioned filing down the front sight.  The REASON you would want to file down the front sight to get a longer range 200 yard (or more) zero is you could still hit well at 100 yards by aiming LOWER on the body and you would not have to hold as high off the top of the head for longer shots.  That means in the heat of battle, it makes it easier to hit accurately at long range because you aren’t guessing as much for elevation “hold over.”

Why would you WANT to have a rifle sighted in for 200 yards or more?  Even at “loose order” used by British Forces, you want to hit enemy soldiers and kill or seriously wound them as far away as possible because you CAN and you can’t load as fast as a musket and don’t have a bayonet.  Riflemen equipped with front sights that were filed down for a longer range “zero” would have been able to effectively engage British soldiers at 300 yards or more.  Now, perhaps they didn’t do that very often and that’s the reason they missed so often that they were ordered not to take as many long range shots? 

Gus 

[Candle Snuffer]

I believe the American Riflemen's rifle's already had the reputation of having low sights which they (at that time) felt gave the best accuracy.  The combination of taking all the front sight to the base (or anywhere in between top to bottom) along with hold over would generate your ranging out beyond 100 yards to 200 & 300, with the 400 yard shot, a shot in the dark but try it anyway.  A hit on your enemy is a hit no matter what.  The hit on the horse from 400 yards still sent a message for the British officers to leave that hill, which they did.

I don't think we can compare the Baker rifle to the American long rifles of the day.  The rifles, just as the men using them were complete opposites.  Those using the Baker Rifle's were using them in battle - fighting for their King, and no doubt the occasional hunt when given permission.  Those using the Long Rifle were woodsmen mostly, and they used their rifle's almost certainly on a day to day application of hunting or battle.  Obviously not every day, but more so then the soldiers using the Baker rifle.

I just think marksmanship was bred into the frontiersmen / woodsmen, and that's what made them so effective with ranging shots when ranging long shots were called for.  Sure, you probably won't hit your target every time, but coming close can sure send a message to those on the receiving end.

[Artificer]

Holding lower on the front sight is more difficult to make up for the bullet drop at 300 and 400 yards when the front sight is already low.  Grooved lines in the barrel would help there.  That way you could still (at least more often) actually see your target to sight in on it and thus have less risk of missing.

The problem with holding over, is the target has to be standing still or you don’t have much chance of hitting it, even when you happen to judge the hold over correctly, because you can’t see the target and slight misalignments will cause the bullet to be off the mark OR if the person moves slightly, you won’t hit them. 

The accounts of 300 and especially 400 yard hits are pretty sparse in the record, and when they have hit something, it often took them two or more shots and that was while resting the rifle.  Then of course there is the evidence American Riflemen were ordered not to fire at longer ranges because they missed so much.

Then of course there is evidence like Campbell’s 25 rifleman who all missed at least once or more when firing at a Colonel on a fat horse moving through water.  For extremely skilled rifleman, SOMEONE should have hit him out of those 25 plus shots fired.

Further, as noted in this thread, short starters were almost unknown to American Riflemen during the Revolution, so the long range accuracy they actually got from their rifles isn’t what we can get out of similar rifles today, because their patched balls did not fit as tightly.

Where the American riflemen probably did hit well was within 150 yards, because they were used to shooting at that distance or less. 

Your reasoning that the American Riflemen were much more used to shooting and firing than the British Soldiers who used the Baker rifles, actually shows the advantage of sighting the rifles for 200 yards for war, as the British riflemen were not as accomplished of rifle shots.  It takes a lot of the guess work out of the shots and they did not need to be so experienced to hit well on the battlefield.

Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

This is an interesting topic that requires some field testing.  Fortunately where I live our local range stretches out to 300 yards.  Now I've shot out to 200 yards many a time, and we use to have a little annual contest we did here on ALR (shooting out to 200 yards) but we haven't done this in awhile.

While there is no way (for me) to duplicate a moving target out to 300 yards without a lot of rope and preparation, I do think in the Spring I will have to set something up (3 Redcoats) at maybe 300, 250, and 200 yards and see what becomes of that, using my (obviously) fixed sight flintlock long rifle.  I fully intend to shoot from a prone position at 300 yards, kneeling (using a tree as a rest to lean against for the 250 yard shot, and I'll probably fabricate something up to slide the rifle over to duplicate firing across a fallen tree at 200 yards.  Shooting from "cover" would have been the primary goal of the American Rifleman (if all went well during the battle), so this should prove interesting.

I may also try to get our State Senior Historical Adviser involved in this test as he has an 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle, and is an avid traditional muzzle loading shooter.  Have to see what we can come up with.

[Artificer]

I would be very interested in the results of such a test, with some caveats.  

I assume you are going to use a set of front and rear sights that are as low on the barrel as originals were.  I mention this because many of us stray from original size sights and put larger ones on our rifles nowadays to shoot better.  If the sights are not close duplicates of the originals, then I believe you would agree the results would not be valid, especially as you mentioned possibly using an Original Harpers Ferry Rifle that have the original sights on them.  It would be great for you to record the height of the front and rear sights.  

I’m not sure how you are going to replicate the looser fitting ball/patch combinations that were used back then when they did not use bullet starters and that will detract from accuracy.  I know one can come up with slightly smaller diameter balls, nowadays, but I’m not sure how that would agree with original bullet/patch combinations and I don’t believe we will ever know because in most cases, as the original molds for the rifles were not kept with the rifles.  Maybe the closest we can come would be a ball that can be pressed into the bore with the thumb and rammed down with just the wiping stick (wood ramrod)?  May I also suggest that linen or a cloth material authentic to the period be used for the patching material?  Cotton cloth is out because it was way too expensive in the 18th century, while linen of some sort would be much more authentic, though other period materials could have been used.  May I also suggest that you don’t take measurements of the cloth as they had no way to do that in the period other than how/if the patch allowed the ball to go down the bore?   Please understand I’m not trying to throw a ringer in with this paragraph, as I really am not sure how one could authentically replicate the looser ball/patch combinations they used with authentic materials.

The selection of the rifle balls is important, as well.  I believe you would expect them to all be cast from a mold (even allowing our modern molds most likely make more uniform and therefore more accurate bullets).  I would expect you to select the best looking ones, by eye, as they would most likely have done for long range shooting.  I’m sure you would agree that weighing balls for uniformity was not something they could have done.  

Another problem I see is how to duplicate 18th century gun powder.  I would not expect you to try to make your own, but it is possible or even likely our modern powders are more consistent and therefore more accurate.  I think we will just have to allow for a little less accuracy for original powders, perhaps?  However, I do expect you to use the best powder charge you came up with for the best accuracy from your 200 yard shooting, as that is what they would have done.  

If the sights of the rifle/s you are going to use are as low as the originals, I think it’s great you already have a 200 yard zero or know where to hold for that distance.  I also assume you will try to fire when the wind is not blowing or blowing the least, because that is what they would have done, if possible.  It would be very interesting to get results from some wind blowing and at what speed/s in the data as well, though.

I am not sure I would expect a moving target to be shot at in your tests.  I can’t prove it, but I don’t think 300 yards or more would have been a distance that most Eastern American Riflemen would have taken a shot on a moving target in hunting, unless MAYBE it was a slow walking deer.  Not even sure they would take the chance of spooking the deer by doing it and would have waited for the deer to stop or worked closer to the deer before taking a shot.  Further, to reliably hit a moving target at that distance, the target would preferably be moving at a constant speed.  If speed of the target changed, even after the bullet was fired, it could easily cause a miss on a man, if not a deer.  Most of, if not all the 300 plus yard shots recorded seem to have been shot at Soldiers who were not moving.  I think good results could be taken from taking a rest as you mentioned and shooting at 300 yards (and 400 yards if your range has that distance) at a stationary man sized silhouette.  I very much agree that while a rifle ball in the arm would not have been a completely disabling shot, a hit even in the arm was much better than no hit at all and would have been well worth doing and  “disabling enough.”  

Here is something that we just can not duplicate in a modern test and that is how the rifleman was affected by the fog of war and battlefield conditions, as no one is shooting at you or advancing on you as you are shooting.  However, I admit it probably would not have bothered a rifleman as much when the enemy was 300 yards away vs 100 or less yards away.  So may we agree that the shooting you do is going to be a better example of what the rifle can do vs what a Rifleman could or did do when the battle was going on?  

If I were going to do such a test, I would get a target frame used in  NRA high power rifle matches to mount the target.  That way, it may be easier to record how far off each shot is by where it strikes on the target cloth and that may make it easier on you.  I would use a police silhouette target attached to the target frame as a realistic target, though I would add “legs” to it because a leg shot would have been very much a disabling shot, if not a killing shot from blood loss.  Average height of a British soldier in 1775 was about 5’6”, while the average height of an American then was two to three inches taller.  

If it would not be too much of an imposition, may I suggest you shoot at least a three shot group at each distance you shoot and not wipe between shots?  That would give us a better picture of accuracy the rifle is capable of delivering at longer ranges.  

Please understand I’m very interested in such a test and I would do it myself, but I’m now too old at 60 with eyesight going seriously downhill and don’t shoot nearly as well as I did 20 or 30 years ago, so it would not be a valid test if I did it.

Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

Good morning Gus.

I wouldn't let age stop you, your only two years older then I, and I know what you mean about the eye sight issues.  Still, I have to try.  My friend with the Harper's Ferry is 64, but I think he'll join me in this.

The rifle I plan on using is a plain Jane .45 caliber - 42" barrel Dickert (Pennsylvania) rifle.  The rear sight is 3/16" tall with the bottom of "V" notch setting at about 9/64ths.  Front sight sets at 5/32nds tall.  My normal load's for this rifle is 55 & 65 grains of 3fg with a .445 ball, but I do have some .437 & .440 balls.  I might even have some .433 balls laying around somewhere?  I think I have some linen for patching laying around somewhere.  If not, I'll just have to get some.

I can't speak for Jim's rifle, the Harper's Ferry.  Not sure what he's shooting through it?  I have a while to find this out however.

For targets, I was thinking of just making them out of 3/8 CDX plywood, full size silhouette with even the hat on the head, and complete with legs,,, paint them up to resemble a British Redcoat, and prop 'em up.  Our little muzzle loading  group can have some fun with them after the testing is done.  I'll probably make four of them.

With four targets, I'm thinking perhaps - 150, 200, 250, and 300 yards.  Not so sure a 100 yard target would even need to be addressed? 

I'm also now thinking that shots taken should be;

One shot each (offhand & Kneeling) - 150 yards
One shot each (Kneeling & Prone) - 200 yards
250 & 300 yards shooting position to be determined from the best results of the 150 & 200 yard shots.

Note; the offhand & kneeling shots would be while leaning against a tree for support.  The prone shooting pretty much speaks for itself, but I'll leave open the option of shooting across a fallen log to rest the rifle on or against.

I can't duplicate weather conditions of the eastern seaboard. nor elevation of sea level, and humidity levels, as I live in northwest Nebraska.  However, this little (or big) testing would still be interesting to see the results.  

[Dphariss]

Low sights.
If the rifle is near ambient temperature then given the way that rifle matches were generally shot, maybe 5-10 shots over an hour or even 2 or 3 depending on how many shooters are present, the low sights are not a concern.
We need to understand that rifle matches of 1770-1870 were not necessarily what we do now.
In a match such as this light weight barrels seldom produce much mirage. Even a heavy barreled rifle, if its not taken indoors to load will not produce a lot of mirage if it does not start out warm enough from being inside or in a warm vehicle to cause a problem.


This is a 19th c painting titled Turkey Shoot at Saratoga Springs.
Many shooters, one firing point. Load your rifle, shoot your shot, wipe and reload for the next shot after everyone else has shot.
Mirage is not likely to be a problem.


Dan

[Dphariss]

Some thoughts on the testing.

Col Hanger, who was actually there. Tells us that for serious shooting the rebels generally shot from prone. Just like in the matches they shot.
People only shot offhand if they had to considering it " a poor test of the rifle". In matches they would shoot over a chunk often padded to prevent muzzle jump or "spring". Now its well known that shooting from a hard surface will often put the point of impact "off" compared to a softer surface. Riflemen in the 18th c apparently knew this.
This info  can all be found, from period sources, in "The Frontier Rifleman" or "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution".

Dan

[Artificer]

Good Evening Candlesnuffer,

Sorry it takes me a while to reply.

I’m afraid that with the VA taking over a year to get me an operation to reattach a detached retina, and a cataract in the other eye that though it blurs my vision in that eye, it isn’t quite large enough for them to take it out, shooting good targets is out of the question for me for a while – if ever again.

Good info on your rifle and loads.  I agree a 100 yard target need not be used for this test.  Adding the 50 yard increments in range that you mentioned is great.

Come to think of it, I like your plan of shooting one shot from each position and range.  For both hunting and war, it is the first shot that counts.  (Takes me back to 1974 when SSgt Carlos Hathcock taught me how to sight in my hunting rifle, when I was a young
Sergeant.)

While I agree with Dan that they went to prone for longer range when they could, sometimes you have to use kneeling and offhand to line up on targets when the ground between you and the target is not flat.  Please do use a rest as they would have done it, if at all possible for kneeling and prone.

I look forward to hearing about your test and results.

Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

Hello Gus,

I'd say you were taught by the very best on how to sight in your hunting rifle back in '74.  SSgt Hathcock is a legend, and a national treasure in my humble opinion.  I don't care what anyone says, he set the standard for today's expert marksmen!

I understand where you're coming from with your eye problems.  I expect you'd rather be the one to be doing this test exercise, so I'll try to do justice with it.

Nice thing about shooting prone, a rise in the ground with your hand under the stock settles any vibration issues one might encounter.  Same holds true for sliding one's rifle up over a log.  Your hand between your stock and rest plays a key roll.

I think what I'll do over these coming winter months, is lay out a shooting program for this test.  We've covered a lot of ground here.

Later Gus,
CS 

[Candle Snuffer]

Dan brings up a good point on the offhand shooting.  There would be no reason to take a offhand shot unless one was retreating (something American Riflemen had to do a lot of during the ARW).  Gus also brings up a good point on when an offhand shot may need to be taken.

I'd run some test today (as it's very nice out with little wind) however, my local range is full of high power rifle deer hunters checking their zero.  I'm glad I don't hunt in that modern firearm rat race...

[Artificer]

CS,

Some times one has to be careful about sliding a hand between the gun and rest, especially when one’s pulse rate is up.  Then it causes the rifle to bounce around a bit.  It’s better to use a rolled up coat or period pack to raise a rifle when needed in the prone position (if you have one), if you can’t find a log or other rest, because you are not introducing another variable into shooting.  Using the hand to grip or support the rifle next to a tree can and often is better than not, but again, one has to be careful about raising one’s pulse rate.  Some times it is better to grip a tree and place a coat or something between the hand and rifle to sort of balance out the effects of your pulse rate. 

One thing I’m really interested to see in the results is something that is a bit hard to describe.  Some people today call it the “maximum point blank range” of a rifle, or other descriptions.  Basically I’m referring to the distance that when you sight your rifle on something, the trajectory of the ball causes the strike of the bullet to not be higher or lower than say 3 to 5 inches from your sights.  This means you align the rifle sights “dead on” where you want to hit and the ball will actually hit the target in a within a 6 inch to 10 inch circle within a certain range.  Then you don’t have to estimate range and you can shoot quickly and effectively without making a bunch of mental calculations.  We know the “killing zone” of a white tail deer is a circle of about 8” and as long as your ball hits within that circle, it should be a good killing shot.

This is why I wrote about wondering at what range American Riflemen sighted in their rifles and suggested that they may have filed down the front sights to sight in at longer ranges during War Time. 

The following link shows bullet drop of the same .530 cal. Round Ball fired at about 1,800 fps in two trajectory charts, BUT the difference is where the rifle was originally sighted.  There is a noticeable difference when the rifle is sighted at 100 yards, vs 50 yards and where the trajectory of the ball will stay within a killing zone when you simply sight the rifle dead on and shoot.  As noted in the text:

“Of course, the ball is exactly on target at 100 yards, but look at 125 yards. It has fallen only 3.44 inches below line of sight, as opposed to 8.15 inches in the 50 yard chart. So, the ball now deviates more above the line-of-sight , but less below the line-of-sight out to 125 yards. Most importantly, notice that the point Blank Range has increased from 56 yards to an impressive 115 yards. In this instance, that means that from the muzzle to 115 yards out, the ball will not deviate from line-of-sight by more than 1.9 inches high or low, or not outside a circle of 3.8 inches. It also means that out to 115 yards there is no need to guess where the ball will go, but that we can just point and shoot out to that range.”

http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html

Now, PERHAPS the American Riflemen already had their rifle sights set for 100 or more yards to take advantage of this in hunting.  I don’t believe we have documentation on what range/s they sighted in their rifles, but it makes sense that knowledgeable/experienced riflemen would have fired their rifles enough to know where it hit at longer ranges and as someone suggested, they could do it by firing at tree trunks.  Still, it seems reasonable to me that they zero’d their rifles at longer ranges than we often do today for 25, 50 and 100 yard matches. 

On an 18th century British Soldier, the length of the average man’s torso was about 16” to 17”.  Ideally then, you would want the maximum point blank range so the ball is not higher or lower than 8 to 8 ½” from your aiming point in the center of the torso within that range.  Then all you have to do in combat is aim for the center of his torso and fire within that range, without having to do mental calculations that would be hard to do in combat.  IOW, you would have fast and accurate shots by aiming dead center on the enemy’s torso.  At longer ranges, you would aim at the enemy soldier’s head and the ball would drop down into the torso for a wounding/killing shot. What I don’t know is how far that range would be when aiming at the head and the ball would drop down inside the enemy’s torso.  At that range, though, you would not have to GUESS about how far above the enemy soldier’s head you had to aim to hit him.  That is a hugely distinctive advantage in combat.

As a youngster, we didn’t use high power rifles for hunting.  However, we did use .22 rifles and Dad had the rifle sighted in so all we had to do was aim center within 50 yards and we would get the squirrels or rabbits.  Heck, the rifle MAY have been pre-sighted at the factory that way.

Those of us who are “chronologically challenged” enough to have fired M1 Garands or M14’s in the Armed Forces may remember the “Battle Sight Zero” was taken from the 300 yard Prone, slow fire shooting position when all the Services were still teaching 500 yard shooting.  With this sight setting, at short range, you just aimed at the bottom of the enemy’s torso.  At ranges longer than 300 yards, you aimed at the enemy’s head.  Now this wasn’t quite enough height for 500 yards, but it would still mean a hit in the torso around 400 plus yards and that is as long as most shots were taken.  This is also why the M16 series of rifles have a “flip up” long range rear sight to shoot at longer ranges, after you have established your 300 yards Battle Sight Zero, and be more sure of a hit at longer range.  That idea is not new, by any means.  The Baker rifle we already mentioned was sighted in at 200 yards and had a period “flip up” rear sight for 300 yards.

Original Springfield Armory accounts stated that they wanted the acceptance standard for the .58 caliber rifle musket (used so much in the Un-Civil War) was it had to be able to consistently hit a man sized target at 300 yards and stop the charge of a horse at 500 yards.  The front sight height to the rear sight causes period rifle muskets to shoot WAY high at 50 yards and high at 100 yards, to be able to do that.  Of course the trajectory of the Minie Ball was not nearly as flat as modern suppository guns.  They also had a flip up sight for longer range.  In use, they taught soldiers to “Aim for the enemy’s knee’s” at very close range and aim for the enemy’s head at 300 yards.  This is much closer to the period of the Baker Rifle. 

Now most 18th century American rifles did not have a flip up rear sight, though they were more common on German Jaeger rifles dating earlier and later than 1740.  Perhaps the longer American rifle barrels also showed they did not need a flip up sight within most hunting ranges? 

Any way, it will be interesting to see what kind of trajectories you get between 150 yards and 300 yards.

Gus

[Dphariss]

Military rifles and hunting rifles are almost apples and oranges at least in how they are zeroed. A rb rifle sighted for 200 is not a good hunting arm. Where would one hold on a rabbit at 50 yards or even a turkey?
The German Jaegers needed a multi-leaf rear sight because most were 58 caliber or more and were rifles one turn in the barrel giving twist rates under 30" in most cases. The American rifle was a hunting rifle. I had low sights and since the barrel was generally "4 foot" the twist was 4 foot +-.  This coupled with a smaller caliber gave the ability to produce much flatter trajectories that would give a point blank on deer to 110-120 yards and  holding on a mans head at 200 would likely produce a hit as well. 300 will likely require about 6 feet of hold over depending on how the rifle is sighted and charged.

At 200 in good conditions a 54 caliber rifle will shoot into about 6" at 200 with a peep sight. I have no idea what the group size is at 300. The wind, even a slight breeze will blow the group at 200 and at 300 holding 6-8 ft of wind will be necessary with a 50 cal if the wind is 10 mph.

I went to Photobucket and retrieved one of the trajectories I had run on a website and this is what I get for a 50 cal at 1900 fps. Pretty high for 1777 but easily doable today.
My my 6 ft of hold over is too conservative. I was shooting the heavy rifle at pigs on the sil. range in Oct and was guessing at hold over. I got one pig in 5-6 shots and several near misses probably 2-3 would have his a man low. But had no good aiming point. This shooting off the plank rest we use. It is not as steady as prone with a rest but better than sitting.

No, prone is not always possible, but modern snipers seldom shoot offhand. The guy that Hanger describes was on a mill pond dam so he had an elevated position.
I KNOW that prone is not always possible. I hunt every season and sometimes offhand is all that will work. Sitting, depending on the terrain is often unusable or at best unreliable due to terrain or even the grass that is usually present. When hunting antelope standing is just not an option and sitting is bad enough at the ranges needed for a RB rifle.
Then there is the old saying "don't stand up during contact" This is not always workable either but very good advice none the less, I don't care what war it is.
Both Huddleston's "Colonial Rifleman.." and LaCrosse's "Frontier Rifleman.." are full of 18th and 19th C quotes by people who were there. While some of the newspaper accounts are probably propaganda and the authors state this, its hard to dispute personal observations from books and letters.

Dan

[Candle Snuffer]

Morning Gus,

I have to say, you post some very interesting reads.  Yes, I'm very familiar with the battle sight zero that was taught us with our M16 back in the '70's.

My flintlock of choice for this exercise - when I aim at an NMLRA 8 Ring Black target at 100 yards - I set my point of aim at 12:00 o'clock on the top of the black at 100 yards which allows me to stay within the black with all five shots and flirt with the  9 - 10 Rings (mid to low hits, with two to three (depending) 8 point  counters).  Of course this approach is because of the 25 and 50 yard shooting that is most common today with competition muzzle loading, and I use fixed sights.

Drop tables really don't do me a lot of good as most were developed at sea-level to under 900 ft above sea-level, and in area's known for high humidity.  I live at 3800 ft above sea level with low humidity so there is to much variation to the tables for me to really draw any useful information from.  I remember moving out here from Ohio, 25 years ago, and I had to re'zero every muzzle loader I owned do to the difference in elevation and humidity.

Anyway, have to get around to go to work.  I'm off tomorrow so I hope I have a decent day to maybe do some shooting.  I might take my front sight down a bit and get a closer 100 yard zero?

[Dphariss]

Good Grief.
I need to POST the darned table.



I live a 4000 and generally shoot at 4500 to 5000+ this table is for 4000 ft.

Never tried running a flintlock on my shooter app.

Dan

[Dphariss]

This was generated from my iPod running "Shooter".



BC might be high. But its ball park for the .070 used in the previous one.

Dan

[Chris Treichel]

"A clapboard, with a mark the size of a dollar, was put up; they began to fire off-hand, and the bystanders were surprised, few shots being made that were not close to or in the paper. When they had shot for a time in this way, some lay on their backs, some on their breast or side, others ran twenty or thirty steps, and firing, appeared to be equally certain of the mark. With this performance the company were more than satisfied, when a young man took up the board in his hand, not by the end, but by the side, and holding it up, his brother walked to the distance, and very coolly shot into the white; laying down his rifle, he took the board, and holding it as it was held before, the second brother shot as the former had done. By this exercise I was more astonished than pleased. But will you believe me, when I tell you that one of the men took the board, and placing it between his legs, stood with his back to the tree while another drove the center." Force, Peter, American Archives, Series IV, vol. 3, page 2.
"Captain Cresap's Company of Riflemen, consisting of 130 active, brave young fellows...With their rifles in their hands they assume a kind of omnipotence over their enemies...Two brothers in the company took a piece of board, five inches broad, and seven inches long, with a bit of white paper, about the size of a dollar, nailed to the center, and while one of them supported this board perpendicularly between his knees, the other at the distance of upwards of sixty yards, and without any kind of rest, shot eight bullets successively through the board, and spared a brother's thighs! Another of the company held a barrel stave perpendicularly in his hand, with one edge close to his side, while one of his comrades, at the same distance, and in the manner before mentioned, shot several bullets through it, without any apprehensions of danger on either side. The spectators appearing to be amazed at these feats, were told that there were upwards of fifty persons in the company who could do the same thing; and there was not one who could not plug 19 bullets out of 20 (as they termed it) within an inch of the head of a ten penny nail; in short, to evince the confidence they possessed in their dexterity at these kinds of arms, some of them proposed to stand with apples on their heads, while others at the same distance undertook to shoot them off; but the people, who saw the other experiments, declined to be witnesses of this. Dunlap's "Pennsylvania Packet or The General Advertiser," Monday, August 28, 1775, No. 201,
cited in John G.W. Dillin, The Kentucky Rifle, p. 81-82.
The Virginia Gazette of July 25, 1775 carried an article claiming that so many riflemen had volunteered for the rifle companies that a shooting test was required to weed down the numbers. It was claimed that the judges chalked a drawing of a human nose on a board and sixty men were said to have riddled the mark from 150 yards away. Virginia Gazette, July 25, 1775, cited in Lynn Montross, Rag, Tag and Bobtail, p. 49-50.
To make sure that the message was loud and clear Washington ordered a spectacular demonstration of the abilities of his riflemen. With a huge crowd of spectators on hand Washington publically had his men fire at a seven inch diameter pole from 200 yards. The riflemen riddled the pole. Others fired at 250 yards. Some companies, at quick march, hit seven inch targets at 200 yards.21  Cline, Walter, Muzzle-Loading Rifle Then and Now, p. 35.
Tim Murphy As the battles around Saratoga raged, the British, having been pushed back, were being rallied by Brigadier General Simon Fraser. Benedict Arnold rode up to General Morgan, pointed at Fraser and told Morgan the man was worth a regiment. Morgan called on Murphy and said: "That gallant officer is General Fraser. I admire him, but it is necessary that he should die, do your duty." Murphy climbed a nearby tree, took careful aim at the extreme distance of 300 yards, and fired four times. The first shot was a close miss, the second grazed the General's horse, and with the third, Fraser tumbled from his horse, shot through the stomach. General Fraser died that night. British Senior officer Sir Francis Clerke, General Burgoyne's chief aide-de-camp, galloped onto the field with a message. Murphy's fourth shot killed him instantly. Murphy also fought at the battle of the Middle Fort in 1780

[Artificer]

Military rifles and hunting rifles are almost apples and oranges at least in how they are zeroed. A rb rifle sighted for 200 is not a good hunting arm. Where would one hold on a rabbit at 50 yards or even a turkey?

This coupled with a smaller caliber gave the ability to produce much flatter trajectories that would give a point blank on deer to 110-120 yards and  holding on a mans head at 200 would likely produce a hit as well. 300 will likely require about 6 feet of hold over depending on how the rifle is sighted and charged.

At 200 in good conditions a 54 caliber rifle will shoot into about 6" at 200 with a peep sight. I have no idea what the group size is at 300.

Dan

Dan, this is EXACTLY why one would file down the front sight of an American Longrifle when it was used for war, to get a sight zero at longer range to be able to hit an enemy soldier without having to use as much “hold over” at longer ranges and thus it would make it much easier to hit what he was shooting at.    American Riflemen were no longer trying to hit turkeys or other small game at 50 yards, they would be trying to hit much larger targets at much longer ranges. 

Let’s take the example you used of “the point blank range of  110-120 yards and  holding on a mans head at 200 would likely produce a hit as well. 300 will likely require about 6 feet of hold over depending on how the rifle is sighted and charged.”  If you cut down the front sight on that rifle, it would be easier to hit an enemy soldier at 300 yards without having to find an aiming point 6 feet above his head.  Many battles were fought on farm land where they probably did not have a tree or something to aim at 6 feet or higher above an enemy soldier’s head.  By cutting the front sight down, you didn’t have to worry about it.

Allow me to explain the tactical use of a rifle sighted for longer range in the time frame.  In large pitched battles, the British and Hessians normally closed to around 100 yards or maybe 80 yards to fire a volley or volleys and then were given the order to charge with a bayonet.  So 80 yards would have been rather “short range” for an American Rifleman.  The idea is American Rifleman would have done better to open fire at 300 yards or more against the British Formations as they advanced.  That way, one would have time to reload to take at least one more shot (or more) before the British closed to 100 yards.  IOW, the American Riflemen would have been able to take out one, two or maybe more British Soldiers before they had even much hope of hitting the Americans by return musket fire.  Now, even “loose order” formations the British used would have been great for the problems of windage variation at 200 or 300 yards or more.  Even if one miscalculated the windage at longer ranges, the American Riflemen might or even often hit the soldier beside the one aimed at or even another soldier or two away, in the British/Hessian Formations. 

I suggest, and I could be completely mistaken, this is WHY the British decided to sight their Baker Rifles at 200 yards and had a flip sight for 300 yards not even 20 years after they fought here during the Revolution.  The British had been on the receiving end of such longer range shots before they closed to musket range and 20 years later, they had learned the value of having British  Riflemen who would do the same thing to THEIR enemies.  Yes, I know the British had Jaeger rifles in the French and Indian War and their own Pattern 1776 rifles that were used in most major battles by their Light Infantry, besides the limited use of the Ferguson rifles in the American Revolution.  It could also have been from the use of their own rifles in the American Revolution and finding out it was more effective to so sight in their rifles at 200 yards with a flip up sight at 300 yards.  However, military forces of the day normally learned more, or it really stuck in their minds better, which enemy tactics had been the most effective against them. 

Now, of course it would not have been nearly as effective or even counter productive to have filed the front sights down on American Rifles that were NOT used in the open fields and farms of the Eastern Seaboard.  In the areas where there were more woods, or broken ground or rolling hills, etc. – One might not even get a shot at much more than 100 yards and often less.  In those areas, the way the rifles were normally sighted for hunting would have been far better to take quick/accurate shots.

Just for the record, I very much agree that no sniper or sharpshooter or marksman in the period would have taken an offhand shot at 200 yards or more unless he had to and preferably only with a rest taken against a tree or building or rail fence or some kind of vertical support, if he had to stand up to make the shot.  Modern snipers don’t do it today without vertical support of some kind, unless there is no other way to take the shot. 

As to moving targets, there is not much practice done even in much more recent times, on targets moving across your front.  In 1972, they had a moving target range when I went through Infantry Training Regiment.  It had “torso and head” size targets that moved at a walking pace across our front, at both 50 and 100 yards.  For those of us raised in hunting with shotguns, it was easy to figure out how much to lead the targets very quickly
with our rifles.  I thought that was really good training.   However and for whatever reason (most likely the cost of running such ranges), they decided to quit using those targets only a couple years later.  I was still arguing 25 years later that we needed to bring it back.

At the Marine Corps Scout Sniper Instructor School, to pass the course, one had to be able to hit 7 out of 10 shots on a silhouette target moving at walking pace at 700 yards.  Now of course this was with the scoped M40A1 rifle AND from a prone firing position. 

I think in our time period that most American Riflemen could have hit a deer walking across their front at 100 yards from the offhand position, but I’m not sure of ranges much further than that. 
Gus

[Artificer]

Dan,
Thanks for the drop tables.  Very informative.
Gus