Author Topic: Rifle Accuracy 1776  (Read 104776 times)

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #75 on: November 12, 2013, 09:57:00 PM »
CS,

Thanks for the kind words.

I was very much an Anachronism from even my early days in the Marine Corps.  When I showed up to begin my one year apprenticeship to build NM rifles and pistols at the Rifle Team Equipment Repair Shop at Quantico, VA in 1973  – they asked quite a few questions on our background.  When asked what kind of shooting I had done, I included my shooting a .50 cal T/C Hawken.  At that point, they acted kind of strange and said, “Oh, you are one of those muzzleloading guys…..”  They often made cracks about it, though we later learned it was from jealoiusly about something they didn’t know.   They told me Sergeant Mike Gingher from Indiana was also one and he became my dearest friend in life.  He took me to Friendship, IN for my first trip in the spring of 1974.  Mike was almost exactly 10 years older than I and had competed on the Primitive Range there for quite a few years at the National Shoots before I met him.

When it came time for all of us Armorers to shoot our Annual Requalification in the fall of 1975, we got with the Master Sergeant who was our Shop Chief and we decided to play a prank on the young Lt. who was running the range for us.  Though Mike owned a good number of original and reproduction flint rifles, he showed up with an original Amoskeag  Colt Rifle Musket and I had my original .41 cal. percussion Swiss Federal Rifle.  We went up to the Lt. and asked him where we were supposed to go to draw powder, ball and caps to shoot the course.  That got the Lt. flabbergasted and he said, “You can’t shoot those things here!”  We replied of course we could as they were military issue rifles.  That got him to stuttering.  Then he said, “We don’t have ammo for those things.”  Mike replied, “Yes, sir.  Well, we figured that so we brought our own.”  So the Lt. raised more objections and asked how we were going to shoot the 500 yard stage of fire.  I showed him the adjustable sights on the rifles and then got down on the ground on my back with the forearm of the rifle supported by my knee and said that was the correct shooting position.  Now, another Sergeant who was on the International Team, then told the Lt. that was a legal position for International Shooting.  Finally, the light bulb went on over the Lt.’s head and he figured he “had us.”  He said, “OK, just HOW are you going to shoot the rapid fire stages?” I told him, “No sweat, Sir, I will stand and fire while Sergeant Gingher is kneeling in front of me.  After I fire, I will kneel in front of him to reload and he will stand and fire.  We will do that while firing, advancing and reloading until we have both fired our 10 shots each.”  At that point the poor Lt. was out of objections and was almost babbling about not knowing what he was going to do.  At THAT point, our Master Sergeant drove up behind the ready lines in his station wagon and yelled to us to come get our M14’s and leave the poor Lt. alone.  So we put our original rifles in the back of his car and took out our M14’s to shoot the course.  Every Marine on the range, except for the poor Lt.,  was cracking up at this point. 

When Mike and I were Armorers on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team, we strongly suggested using flintlock rifles to better teach offhand firing to Team Members.  In NM High Power Rifle Competition, shooting well in the Offhand makes or breaks the shooters.  They thought we were joking them, but we were completely serious.  We finally got one senior GySgt from the Team to come shoot at the monthly blackpowder rifle matches we ran. 

We offered him a flintlock, but he was a bit afraid of it, so Mike loaned him an original Percussion Rifle.  We loaded it for him the first few shots and then he loaded it himself.  After the days shooting, he came up to us and told us he now really understood what we had meant.  Even though he was firing the original percussion rifle, the lock time was just slow enough it was a challenge for him to hold it well to shoot well.  That GySgt was already a Distinguished Marksman, but he came to all our monthly shoots from then on for the offhand practice where he had to hold well for longer periods than a NM M14.  He even got a few other Team Shooters to join us a few times.  Now we never got the Team to buy Flintlock rifles for practice, but we made our point aboiut having to be a better offhand shot with them, than with modern rifles.

My interest in flintlock rifles includes HOW they might have used them in the 18th century to get the kind of accuracy reported in original accounts.

Gus

Offline Chris Treichel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #76 on: November 12, 2013, 11:33:24 PM »
Here is another great story albeit an Englishman but nevertheless some great flintlock shooting of that era. If you are familiar with the BBC/PBS Napoleonic Wars series this is based on some of his exploits...

Rifleman Thomas Plunkett: 'A Pattern for the Battalion.'[1]

By Stuart Hadaway

Of the men who fought in the Napoleonic Wars, few are remembered except those whose high rank permits it. Our insights today into the lives and careers of individual members of the rank and file who made up the bulk of British Army in the Peninsula are almost solely restricted to those very few who later published diaries, letters or memoirs. Yet a few names and characters do live on in the pages of others' writings, achieving sufficient fame to be recalled by one or more of their comrades and thus passed on into posterity. Rifleman Thomas Plunkett is one of these rarest of characters. Although he left no record of his own existence, others of his battalion, the 1st Battalion 95th Rifles, have seen fit to set down this Irishman's career and achievements beside their own to leave us with a scattered picture of a man who was certainly a character, if not a hero.


An Auspicious Start

Mention of Plunkett can first be found during Lieutenant-General John Whitelocke's disastrous expedition against Spanish colonies in South America in 1807. The 95th, with the 43rd and 52nd Foot, formed a part of the Light Brigade (led by Robert Crauford in an inauspicious start to a later legendary partnership). This brigade was involved in the attack on Buenos Aires on 6 July 1807 which culminated in their being surrounded and forced to surrender to the Spanish. During the attack the 95th became isolated and besieged in the convent of St. Domingo by a vastly superior Spanish force. Although the only Rifleman-journalist present, Harry Smith,[2] quite understandably glosses over this most ignoble episode in the regiment's history, Verner[3] states that it is here that Plunkett first made his name. While on the roof of the convent Plunkett and a second man, Rifleman Fisher, "literally shot down every Spaniard who ventured to show himself within range." He quotes Plunkett as later claiming to have shot twenty Spanish soldiers, including an officer whose shooting of he was probably most remembered for at the time. This officer was carrying a flag of truce and coming to offer terms for surrender when Plunkett, ignorant of the flags meaning, shot him through both thighs provoking a Spanish barrage and assault. Again, for understandable reasons, Smith makes no mention of this.

But it is in the Peninsula War that Plunkett's name was truly made with his most famous act, indeed one of the most famous acts undertaken by any individual common soldier during the war. It occurred at the village of Cacabellos in the Galacian Mountains. A small village, nestled in a valley formed by the River Cua, it would have probably remained untouched by history had it not lain on the road to Corunna, and right in the line of retreat for Sir John Moore's army. On the 3 January 1809, the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles, forming the rearguard with the rest of the Reserve Division, stood on the southern ridge to cover the road to the village's double arch stone bridge, across which the British Army was retreating. Typical of the retreat's breakdown in discipline, even among the elite 95th, the previous day some of the Rifles had found a wine store and had become drunk and disorderly. The morning of the 3rd brought a courts martial for two Riflemen along with hangovers and further intoxication for others. Sir Edward Paget, the divisional commander and a true gentleman, had pardoned the two Riflemen sentenced to be flogged and returned the Rifles to the line only moments before the French advance guard came into view. Soon under attack from cavalry from the 15eme Chasseurs a Cheval and 3eme Hussards, the 95th fell back down the hill onto the bridge over which the tail end of the army was still retreating. Chaos threatened to break out with the French mixing it with not only the Rifles but also men of the Light Company of the 28th Foot and 15th Hussars on the approaches to and end of the bridge.


The Shot

Order was swiftly restored, however. The French commander, a dashing and talented young general called Auguste-Marie-Francois Colbert, seeing the rest of the 28th Foot and six guns of the Royal Horse Artillery formed up on the ridge on the far side of the Cua, withdrew his men to be reformed. Paget also pulled his forces back, placing the 28th across the road on the far side with the 52nd and 95th formed up on either side in positions to pour flanking fire onto the bridge. It was this position that Colbert unwisely, and fatally, decided to assault. Forming his cavalry into a column of fours he charged for the bridge. Seeing Colbert charging ahead of his men, distinctive because of his uniform and grey horse, Plunkett raced ahead of the line and onto the bridge. Throwing himself onto his back and resting his Baker Rifle on his crossed feet with the butt under his right shoulder in the approved manner, Plunkett fired at and killed Colbert. Apparently, having reloaded quickly, Plunkett then shot a second Frenchman who had ridden to Colbert's aid before dashing back to the British line.

The exact details of this act have always been rather sketchy. The distances involved, either of Plunkett's advance or of his shot, and Plunkett's motivations are vague. The main problem is with the unreliability or absence of eyewitness accounts. Three Riflemen left accounts, Captain Kincaid, Quarter Master Surtees and Rifleman Costello, yet none of these men were present and base their accounts upon regimental legend. Of those who were in the retreat, Lieutenant Smith and Rifleman Harris both leave comprehensive memoirs that give no mention of Plunkett. Harris, excusably, as he was with the 2nd/95th on the road to Vigo. Similarly, William Napier does not mention him in his history of the war, despite his family's heavy involvement in the Light Division. Basically, the only information available, although from apparently primary sources, is from secondary accounts and hearsay.

The Death of General Colbert

The Death of General Colbert

 

The main area of argument is the range at which Plunkett made the shot. Oman,[4] in stating that it was 'from a range that seemed extraordinary to the riflemen of that day', but giving neither an exact figure, nor any sources, seems to have started to establish the myth of Plunkett making an impossible shot, a myth frequently repeated by modern authors as proof of the prowess of the Baker Rifle and those who used them. Some popular literature even puts the range at 800 yards.[5] Other accounts are less emphatic about the range. Kincaid[6] records only that Plunkett took up an 'advanced position', and Costello[7] that he ran 'about a hundred yards nearer to the enemy'. As no record is left of how far the distance between the lines was at that moment, this does not help much. The most intriguing account is Surtees'. He says that Plunkett 'got sufficiently nigh to make sure of his mark', insinuating that the range was quite normal.[8]

All of these seem to put the emphasis on Plunkett's bravery in advancing so far forward as to make sure of his shot, rather than the range at which the shot was made. The debate probably began much later than the time of the diarists' writings, possibly brought about by the complete lack of evidence on this point. Even Rutherford-Moore,[9] after close analysis of both sources and the ground at Cacabellos concludes that the range could have been 'anywhere between 200 and 600 metres'. This covers the difficulties in balancing the various factors involved in the shot. Plunkett would need to be at a close enough range to hit a moving target despite his breathless and frozen state, yet still be able to beat the speeding cavalry to make good his escape. Another factor needs consideration if the story of his then downing a second Frenchman is to be believed.

 

The Escape

According to Surtees,[10] when Colbert fell the rest of the French were sent 'flying to the rear much faster than they advanced', which would solve the problem of Plunkett's escape, but Costello has Plunkett calmly reload and shoot the enemy Trumpet-Major as he rides to Colbert's assistance.[11] If this is true, than the ranges in question have again to be re-evaluated. For Plunkett to have time to reload before the Trumpet-Major could reach Colbert, Colbert must have been a considerable distance ahead of his troops. For the reloading of a Baker Rifle at least 30 seconds must be allowed. Although Plunkett's experience may have sped his loading, the intense cold and nerves must have equally slowed him down. Presuming that the second Frenchman rode forward to Colbert's aid, and that the pair were still ahead of the main body of Frenchmen when the second shot occurred, thus giving Plunkett the clear view he would have needed, Colbert must have been far in advance of his men, and thus much closer to Plunkett and the British line than otherwise may be thought, thus shortening the range.

All of this, however, is as ever, pure, and complicated, conjecture. It will never be known just what the distances and relationships were for Plunkett's shot or shots, or even if he actually fired the shots. Harman[12] fully discusses the difficulties in attributing any single shot to any single man on a Napoleonic battlefield, but in this instance the odds are probably in Plunkett's favour, and it is certain that Plunkett received the credit and became a most unlikely hero.

Plunkett's character was not one to ordinarily deserve such credit, indeed his motives for performing this act of daring have even been put down to monetary gain by Costello,[13] our main source for information on Plunkett's character. He recounts a story that as the French cavalry charged, Paget offered his purse to any Rifleman who could shoot Colbert, and, accordingly, paid Plunkett for the act. This story has been scorned, probably correctly, by Rutherford-Moore, based upon Paget's known gentlemanly and chivalrous personality, although he admits the possibility that Paget rewarded Plunkett for his act with money at the time.


The Man

Costello writes extensively about Plunkett, whose affect upon Costello probably stems from his role in Costello's introduction to the 95th. He recounts that his first parade with the 95th was a special ceremony to congratulate and promote Plunkett, who was held up and seen as shining example of soldierly conduct and courage to the rest of the battalion. On closer inspection, Plunkett seems a rather dubious hero-figure and role model to hold up for the army to follow. Most accounts of Plunkett's character are sketchy and short, but all agree on one point at least: that he drank. Surtees describes him as 'a noted pickle,'[14] while Kincaid says that he 'suffered from the curse of his country,'[15] at a time when even the Duke of Wellington himself was commenting on the drinking habits of his large proportion of Irish troops. Costello, as ever, gives more details and gives an extreme example of this habit which 'in its destructive consequences, calculated to counterbalance in a soldier a thousand virtues.'[16] While in camp at Campo Mayor, just after the battle of Talavera, Plunkett, a sergeant at the time, was caught drunk on parade by his captain, the Hon. Captain Stewart, and placed under arrest. Despite being a man 'noted for his good humour and humanity' when sober, in his drunken state Plunkett became bent upon revenge. As soon as he was left alone in the guardhouse, he barricaded the door and seized a rifle and vowed to shoot Captain Stewart. Forewarned, the Captain stayed away and Plunkett was persuaded to surrender by Lieutenant Johnston. Court martialled, he was sentenced to the loss of his stripes and three hundred lashes, of which he received thirty-five. The sentence was cut on account of his previous actions and popularity, with even the colonel, Sydney Beckwith, being reluctant to impose the punishment.

Although he seems to have behaved better after his flogging, being raised again to corporal 'notwithstanding little fits of inebriety,' his conduct overall seems to fit Wellington's sneer of his men being the 'scum of the earth', although he also fits the postscript of 'what @!*% fine fellows we've made of them.' All agree that he was 'bold, fit, [and] athletic'[17] man, in the 'prime of manhood; with a clear grey eye, and handsome countenance'. His drunkenness and occasional disorderly behaviour would be nothing unusual in Wellington's army, while his bravery, marksmanship and general appearance and bearing would mark him out as the, in theory, ideal Rifleman. Perhaps it was this overall appearance, along with the desperate need in the British army for heroes to trumpet after the horrors of the retreat to Corunna, that set him up for praise and a medal. Judging by the reaction of Costello, the action certainly had the required morale raising effect upon the new recruits in particular.

This appearance could also account for his inclusion in recruiting parties, where his antics certainly set him aside as a character. While recruiting in one of the 95th's regular haunts, Hythe on the South East Kent coast, Plunkett and his party were aiming to enlist as many of the Militia men stationed in the area as possible to reinforce the battalion after Corunna. This area, nearly opposite the French invasion camps at Boulogne, was an area of major defence works and troop concentrations. Regular battalions were always heavily supported by regiments of Militia, which the army saw as rich recruiting grounds - 48% of the army's recruits in 1809 were from the Militia - and a majority of Riflemen started off in the Militia (Costello in the Dublin Militia). Indeed, when the call went out for 350 more men for the Rifles, 1,282 Militia soldiers volunteered in only a few days.[18] To this end Militia colonels were ordered to place barrels of beer in the streets for all to dip in to, in order to further encourage their men to enlist. Doubtless fortified by the barrels contents and eager to impress the potential recruits, Plunkett climbed on top of an unopened barrel and began to dance a jig (his dancing skills were also well known, dancing the hornpipe on the voyage to Portugal to much acclaim from both soldiers and the crew.) Already attracting attention, all eyes turned to Plunkett as the head of the barrel gave way, leaving him up to his neck in beer. Demonstrating the quick wits encouraged by the 95th in its men, Plunkett heaved himself out of the barrel, and before all present clambered up a chimney in a nearby public house. Descending again, covered in soot, he cried 'd-n your pipe clay, now I'm ready for the grand parade!' Not only did he demonstrate the wit and elan of the 95th, but by turning the situation to emphasise the distinctive uniform and lack of 'pipe clay and button stick which were always hateful to the eyes of soldiers,' two of the very major appeals of joining the 95th, intelligence too.

Fit, intelligent, a crack shot and not above a little capering and even mild mutiny, Plunkett certainly seems to fit the very image of what we have come to see Riflemen as. He was lucky, too, and not only in getting away with threatening to shoot an officer, but also in not receiving a scratch in battle until at Waterloo, where a musket ball hit the peak of his shako and tore his forehead. The wound was sufficiently bad for him to be returned to England and put before the board at Chelsea Hospital. He was only offered a pension of sixpence a day after his many years distinguished service, however. This was a pittance, which Plunkett not only thought so but also told the officers of the board. The resulting argument resulted in his discharge without any pension. His character certainly seems to be one of which Richard Sharpe would have been proud; tough, bright and not adverse to putting senior officers in their place. Sharpe, however, probably would have actually been slightly envious of his ability to avoid bullets and blades!

However, Plunkett lived in the real world and was left homeless and penniless, and with a new wife. Shortly after Waterloo he had married what Costello describes as 'a lady remarkable for being deficient in one essential to beauty - she actually had no face.' This unfortunate woman had been caught in the explosion of an ammunition wagon at Quatre Bras, and her 'countenance was rendered a blue, shapeless, noseless mass,' although she was granted a pension of a shilling a day by the government. Making his way back to Ireland, he eventually rejoined the army, signing up for either the 31st or 32nd Regiment of Foot. Here fortune briefly smiled on Plunkett, for the commander of his district was his old commanding officer, Beckwith (now Sir Sydney.) Recognising Plunkett during a parade, Beckwith promoted him to corporal and later arranged for him to face another board at the Irish wing of the Chelsea Hospital at Kilmainham, where he was granted a pension of a shilling a day.

 

An Inauspicious End

Now discharged, Plunkett, with his wife, took advantage of a government offer to all veterans and emigrated to Canada with the guarantee of land and four years' pay in return for waiving their pension rights. He returned to England in less than a year, however, complaining that his land had proven to be wild and swampy and unusable, and penniless once more as he had forfeited his pension. This brave soldier continued to be typical of the men of Wellington's army for the rest of his life, rejected after years of service and left with little or no pension. Plunkett and his wife spent the rest of their years wandering the country selling matches, needles, and tapes to scratch a living. He died in Colchester in 1851 or 1852, falling over and expiring in the street. His public death and his wife's unfortunate appearance led to news of the event spreading through the town until it came to the attention of several retired officers who recognised Plunkett's name. They started a collection for the widow, totalling eventually £20, while an officer's wife personally financed his funeral and paid for the erection of 'a handsome tombstone'.

Thus ended the life of a remarkable man. Unable, despite his own skills, to leave an account of his life himself, he is never the less perpetuated in the writings of others. In many ways he is typical of soldiers and Riflemen of this period in his character, service, and in his retirement, yet also stands out from them as a charismatic and brave man. Whether he actually was the man who killed General Colbert, the salient reason for his remembrance, is unknown, and probably never will be. Whether the range of the shot was as great as is often claimed is also dubious, but perhaps we are missing the point. Instead of using very shaky evidence to argue out the merits and limits of Napoleonic weapons, we should follow the suit of Plunkett's contemporaries and instead honour the bravery and the skill of the man, and of the army he represents.

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12671
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #77 on: November 13, 2013, 03:39:44 AM »
Great reading.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #78 on: November 13, 2013, 04:56:26 AM »
We have to remember a couple of things about the Baker. While some of the men in the rifle regiments may have had some shooting experience, with rifles, before getting to a rifle regiment it is unlikely the grew up with the rifle.
The Baker is significantly larger in the bore than the average Kentucky of the late 18th c which was probably under 54 caliber.  Calibers larger than this cost more in powder and lead than the effectiveness justifies.
They were hunting rifles. If the rifleman was experienced then he did not need a zero past about 100-120 yards. With this zero if he was getting 1700 fps or so he could shoot to 200 pretty easily. Past 200 the drop gets so extreme that how its sighted don't mean much. When the velocity falls under 1000 the drag is somewhat reduced but in the descending trajectory the ball may be falling several inches in 10 yards and even more by 450-500 yards where some ball sizes will be getting very steep and hold over may be 20 feet.  Shots past 500 with a 54 caliber ball are impossible according to a friend who has tried it.
In the FOREST, where many or these rifles were used on the frontier. 300 yards shots are not going to be common or even 200. But you better not miss some part of the "treed" adversary at 50 or 100 be it head, knee or elbow.
The Baker was not used the way the Colonial Frontier Rifleman used his rifle.
Sighted for 200 the 50 caliber ball is only 55" low by calculation at 300. But the rifleman is then stuck with a ball that is 12" high at 100 and 8" high at 50. It has no usefull point blank for anything but shooting at men on an open field.
The rifleman is better off with a rifle that shoots close to point of aim too 100-120 since from the writings shots past 150 were discouraged since the hit miss ratio fall off to the point that some were afraid the enemy would lose  respect for the rifle. Some riflemen, who perhaps loaded more carefully and had better eyesight were likely very competent to 200. But there are so many variables at 300 with a RB  that hits are equal parts luck and skill. Wind is a nightmare and cannot always be read. When there is no telescope especially.
The 50 caliber RB at 300 yards has 10" more drift  (65") than my 260 Rem has at 1000 yards (calculated). At 300 the 260 produces 4.2" of wind drift in the same 10mph wind. So until shots are tried at longer ranges  most shooters cannot appreciate this.  A wind that we cannot call with a wind flag at 60 yards will drift a 50 RB 1-2". So unless shooting at a rank of men where wind drift can be taken up by a wide target shooting at 300 is not something that would be worth changing the rifles trajectory for. IMO anyway.

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

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #79 on: November 14, 2013, 01:04:47 AM »
Dan,

Are you basing your range and accuracy reports from rifles with tight patch/ball combinations that require short starters to load?  I assume you are, though I could be mistaken.  If so, then during the period it seems American Riflemen would have been less likely to  have gotten the accuracy you mentioned, because they did not use tight ball/patch combinations that we use today.

Do you have any thoughts on whether period iron barrels may have been more accurate or more forgiving of looser fitting ball/patch combinations?  The reason I ask is because I’m not sure how much experience I have with iron barrels.  I have only shot one or two original flint rifles and used the combination ball/patch/powder charge the owner had already found was best in those rifles. I’ve shot quite a few original percussion rifles, but don’t know if the barrels were iron or steel.  One original .36 cal. percussion rifle I owned years ago was VERY forgiving of ball size and patch sizes and still shot as accurately as a person was capable of hoding it to 50 yards.  I found this out when I forgot the balls I normally used and had to borrow some others of a slightly different size during one match.  So I tried maybe three ball sizes with different patch material and the rifle STILL shot “like a laser beam” with whatever I used.  Maybe it was the smaller caliber that was more forgiving? 
Gus

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15847
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #80 on: November 14, 2013, 11:06:41 PM »
I have read that iron was more forgiving than steel due to it's softer or different vibration patterns - something to that effect.

I suspect 'some' riflemen did indeed load their rifle with tight fitting ball and patch combinations than some people surmise - as target shooting was well played across the country throughout the ML period.

Their accounts of accuracy speak for these loads used, I would 'think' -  or  -  there is something in the suggestion that iron barrels shoot better and are less picky of different loads than steel barrels. 

If this is iron barrel theory is true - why aren't accuracy minded shooters having iron barrels made today?

 
Daryl

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

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #81 on: November 15, 2013, 03:15:40 AM »
Daryl,

I think wrought iron being softer would allow more harmonious vibrations in a barrel, that we refer to today as “harmonics.”  One thing that is bad for accuracy in a rifle barrel NORMALLY is when there is a negative node that negatively affects vibrations. A negative node of vibration is like when you drop a rock in a calm water pound and the waves go out in all directions around it until the waves hit something like a dock post and that causes the wave to bounce back and make waves in the direction back towards where you dropped the rock in the water.  In a muzzleloading barrel, the negative nodes are where the barrel is pinned or wedged to the stock.   However, since the pins or even wedges don’t apply a lot of pressure, the amount of the negative vibrations are not nearly as significant as on other firearms.  Also, the amount of metal you have in a muzzleloading barrel makes such negative nodes less important.  I will stay away from modern rifle barrels as this is a muzzleloading forum, except to say that the most accurate modern rifles are bolt action rifles with “free floating” barrels so there are no negative nodes of vibration on the barrel. 

True wrought iron (as in hand wrought or forged iron and not cast iron) is only being made at one place in the UK, today, and no where in the U.S. to my knowledge.  That would make the barrels much more expensive.  Hand forging a barrel, like they did in the period, would make them prohibitively expensive, plus there is always the SLIM chance a barrel weld would give way and burst on firing.  The safety advantage today is using a steel with known properties and with an alloy and stock that can be certified. 

In the period, one would have received the ball mold along with the rifle, so the ball size would not normally have been changed to get a tighter ball/patch combination as we can today.  What they would have had to do to get a tighter ball/patch combination was use thicker patching material.  However, to get the kind of tight ball/patch combinations we use today for the best target accuracy (normally) requires a short starter and there is almost no or no evidence them using short starters even in written accounts on Longrifles from the period and even during shooting matches in those days. 

Further, I doubt anyone would have used a short starter in fights/battles/ war except for the first shot, even if they had had short starters.  After the first shot, one would have wanted to reload as quickly as possible and of course that tight fitting of a ball/patch combination would have seriously slowed or even stopped the reloading process as the barrel fouled more with each additional shot.  Also, the point of impact of the bullet would have changed when using a tighter ball/patch for the first shot and going back to the normal ball/patch combination they used for hunting or normal use of the rifle, for follow up shots.

The problem for 18th century accuracy of Longrifles is there is virtually no evidence of them having used short starters for hunting.  Since they didn’t use them for hunting, they would not have used them for war, as in the discussion of this thread.  Maybe some day someone will find documentation of using short starters in a common manner for Longrifles, but until they do, short starters seem to have been a 19th century innovation and generally only for the target range. 
Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #82 on: November 15, 2013, 07:36:16 AM »
Gus,

I'd kind of like to hear what, George Sutton (Centershot / Mr. Flintlock) of Shooting USA has to say about an undertaking of making these kind of long range shots.  I'm guessing he'd have some insight on all this.  After all, making the (what seems like impossible shots) is what he does.  He's a member here.  He goes by Centershot...
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #83 on: November 15, 2013, 12:01:50 PM »
CS,

Having someone who has done a lot of long range shooting with muzzleloaders would be a welcome addition to this thread.  Even more so if the ball/patch combinations used was not as tight as to require short starters, to give a more accurate picture of true accuracy potential in our period.

Before this thread began, I’m not sure I ever read that American Riflemen were not allowed to shoot at distances beyond 150 yards, because they missed too much.  I find that VERY telling about the real accuracy of Longrifles used in the period.  Not having read that original account myself, I wonder if the original documentation meant when the wind was blowing hard or there was more fog on a certain day or low light or extreme heat or cold? All of these things would have been detrimental to accuracy. 

I’m reminded of the environment we had for the weekend of the 125th year Anniversary of the Battle of Cedar Mountain near Culpepper, VA in August 1987.  This reenactment was also special to reenactors as we actually reenacted the battle RIGHT on part of the original battlefield.  On Friday afternoon, we went out for what was supposed to be a short  “tactical” or “Civil War War game.”  Even though we were well used to wearing wool uniforms in the Virginia summer heat, the 101 degree temperature that day and the humidity index was well over 100 and some of us did not make it even to the tactical due to heat problems and the tactical was canceled shortly after it began.  Accurate long range shooting on that day would have been hard for shooters to do.   The BIG tactical began the next morning, though. 

Morning reveille in the Federal camp went at 3:00 AM so they could get up and take up their positions first.  Reveille was supposed to go at 0400 in the Confederate camp, but there was so much racket with them trying to get the Federals up on time, we all awoke early.  We moved out one hour after the Federals while it was still dark.  When the sun came up and even though it was bright, there was so much fog that you could not see anything 50 yards in front of you and it stayed that way until well after 10:00 AM.  That environment was almost surreal and would have made any long range shooting an impossibility.

In our time period, the Battle of Monmouth stands out in my mind.  Even though it was fought in New Jersey, it was so hot that heat casualties and heat caused deaths were almost or as great as normal battlefield casualties.  Though some of those casualties would not have happened had they had more water available for the troops on both sides, the heat still would have made long range shooting harder on the marksman and there would have been severe heat mirage on days like that, making long range shooting more difficult.

The point I’m trying to make is that weather and other environmental conditions would have caused accuracy problems when trying to make long range shots, both by how the bullet’s flight path was affected and by how the environment affected the shooter.  Maybe that is another reason why they were ordered not to take shots beyond 150 yards? 

Finally, something we don’t think about much today is how good the eyesight of the average Rifleman was, because corrective eye glasses are so common today and so uncommon for most people of that time period.  Because they had no way to precision grind eyeglass lenses for an individual’s prescription, a lot of people back then surely would have needed eyeglasses for the best vision. 
I’m sure the BEST marksmen with the Longrifle had 20/20 or better vision, but I doubt that good of vision was more common then than today.  There is no way of knowing for sure, but Tim Murphy almost certainly had 20/20 or better vision or he could not have been "able to hit a seven inch target at 250 yards” as had been recorded from “Timothy Murphy: Frontier Rifleman". New York State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center. Retrieved 2008-02-12.” as mentioned in the link below.  I ASSUME that the best Riflemen chosen, and who passed strict shooting requirements in the Rev War when mentioned, most likely had 20/20 vision or near it, though. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Murphy_(sniper)

The reason I think about how good their eyesight must have been is because of the astigmatism I’ve always had that kept me from being a National Match shooter and the fact the best shooters on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team over the years did not need prescription eyeglasses.  Carlos Hathcock and others had eyes like an Eagle.  I had marksmanship fundamentals down well enough that I was the 9th Marine in history to have fired a 249 out of 250 on the requalification course at Quantico, VA of 200 through 500 yards and no one had fired a 250 when I retired in 1997.  Still, my eyeballs were not good enough to be a National Match shooter. 

Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #84 on: November 15, 2013, 03:54:24 PM »
Gus, let me throw this out here.  Is it possible that the reported long shots were actually taken from a known measurement of all foot soldiers of the time, measured in Paces, rather then Yards?  Perhaps the word "Yard" replaced the word "Pace" in accounts in newspapers of the time or the articles rewritten by today's historians and the words replaced for our understanding, with those re'writing history not understanding the difference between a "pace and  a yard" distance?

 (a single step in marching, taken to be 30 inches for quick time (120 paces to the minute) in both the British and US armies)

If shots were reported by "Paces" then later the word "pace" replaced by "yard" - here is the scale;

120 Paces = 100 Yards (later replaced by yard - 120 yards)
180 Paces = 150 Yards (later replaced by yard - 180 yards)
240 Paces = 200 Yards (later replaced by yard - 240 yards)

150 Paces = 125 Yards (later replaced by yard - 150 yards)
200 Paces = 167 Yards (later replaced by yard - 200 yards)
250 Paces = 208 Yards (later replaced by yard - 250 yards)
300 Paces = 250 Yards (later replaced by yard - 300 yards)
350 Paces = 292 Yards (later replaced by yard - 350 yards)
400 Paces = 333 Yards (later replaced by yard - 400 yards)

I often have wondered why "foot soldiers" of the ARW time would report measurements in "yards" rather then their drilled in training measurement of the "pace" which the "pace" was way more prevalent to them with the weapons they went to war with and with the tactics of the day.

Just throwing this out there...
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 04:32:27 PM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #85 on: November 15, 2013, 10:58:56 PM »
CS,

You may be onto something there.  I don’t know what they used as a “reference point” to estimate distance.  The common military pace today is 30”, but in the 18th century drill manuals, it was much SHORTER.  Both Bland’s and Cumberland’s British Drill Manuals list a pace as being about 24 inches/2 feet, as the regulation for the “pace”  between files and ranks being between 2/12 feet or 1/6 paces.  So if they used military period paces, the distance would have been up to 1/3 less than the same number of yards.  IOW, 300 military paces was actually 200 yards. 

Another common period length measurement was the Rod at 16.5 feet.  However, I don’t know how familiar most people would have been with that to estimate distances and to my modern mind, that sounds like a nightmare to try to estimate distance. Grin. 

We know surveyors of the period used surveying chains to measure distance and they were done usually in 50 yard length chains or multiples of that length.  Frontiersmen would probably have been familiar with them to some extent.   

One unit of measure that was very commonly used in the 18th century was the Furlong, which was and still is 220 yards.  A “Half Furlong” at 110 yards would have been familiar to many people and just so happens to be the distance Dan has mentioned as the “maximum point blank range” of Longrifles at 110 to 120 yards.
Come to think of it, I have read at least once or twice in original accounts of distance having been recorded in “rifle shots.”   MAYBE that was in half furlong lengths per “rifle shot? “

Gus

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #86 on: November 15, 2013, 11:53:19 PM »
Artificer and CS, you can sure open cans of worms.
Rods was the typical measurement in many if the longer distances rifle matches of the 18th c. Till Civil War times anyway.
20 rods, 40 rods and more 40 rods being 220 yards. The Short-range, Mid-Range and Long-Range matches of the 1870s onward were in yards from 200 to 1000 or perhaps more.
220-440 yards became common int he Picket Bullet era.

Paces? Historically its been 30". But if I step off something I know that if I stretch my step I can get pretty close to 100 yards over a 100 steps or so. I don't do this very often anymore. What someone in 19th or 18th c America called a pace? Maybe 30 " maybe?

Dan

He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Vomitus

  • Guest
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #87 on: November 16, 2013, 12:49:46 AM »
  Dan, is a rod 20 feet?

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #88 on: November 16, 2013, 03:16:53 AM »
16.5 ft,  1/4 of a surveyors chain, 1/320th of a mile according to Wiki

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

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7910
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #89 on: November 16, 2013, 04:32:09 AM »
16 1/2 feet by 1/2 mile is what us farm boys call an acre in case anyone wants to know.     ;D

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #90 on: November 16, 2013, 04:33:26 AM »
If an actual diary of a soldier from the ARW (either side), or a field report, that neither have been rewritten by some historian who is telling us in the 20th century what "they" meant to say in the 17th century - then we may have some better insight on this entire subject - which is at this point (IMHO) open to interpretation.

I am familiar with the Rod measurement, and have heard, but never put much thought into the Furlong (unless it's horse racing).

I'm 5'9" tall and I measured my own Pace to be;

Slow Pace = 26 inches
Fast Pace = 31 inches

I could almost see an average Pace of the ARW soldier being in the 24 to 29 inch neighborhood, so 30 inches may not be over stating?

Pretty interesting stuff.  

So  lets think about this for a minute.  You have won the field and you made a long shot that downed an enemy officer.  Since you won the field and you want to know how far you made your shot from, which "Pace" speed would you use to "Pace" off that distance?  My guess is it would be the slower to maybe even a "middle" pace, (in my case 28.5"), while in the pace of the ARW day, 26.5"...

Food for thought?  
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #91 on: November 16, 2013, 09:28:16 AM »
Dan,

Yeah, I know we can open cans of worms, but isn’t that how we come to a better grasp of knowledge?  Grin.

OK, I stand corrected on the length of period surveyor’s chains.  I know I had read or heard they were 50 yards, but after more research, they were really 4 rods (at 16.5 feet per rod) or 66 feet or 22 yards long.  (An acre is equal to 10 square chains composed of say by 1chain by 10 chains or 2 chains by 5 chains, for example.)  A Furlong was 10 chains at 220 yards and a Half Furlong was 5 chains (or 20 rods at 16.5 foot per rods) or 110 yards.  Therefore the measurement of ½ furlong or 20 rods pretty much agrees with what you have stated as the point blank range of a period rifle. 

You are correct the average length of the modern pace is 30” and has been the standard length of a military pace since at least WWII when one looks up the Drill Manuals.  However, Hardee’s Drill Manual circa 1855 states that a pace THEN was 28 inches.  Once again, 18th century British Drill Manuals (both Blair’s and Cumberland’s) set the distance of a pace at 22”.  So a military pace in our time period was only 22” or 2/3’s of a yard.  In the 18th military and even when I went to Boot Camp in 1971, they literally or figuratively pounded the distance of a pace into us – at whatever distance the pace was at that time, to perform all the marching movements taught to soldiers, Marines, etc.

My personal stride is a good bit longer than 30” and fellow Marines often commented on it when we did “route step.” However, 42 years after Marine Corps Boot Camp, I still use a 30” step/pace when marching OR estimating distances.

Now how did/does the military judge distance when there is no more accurate measuring device?  They “pace it off.”  They do this because soldiers are taught to hold a basic and uniform pace in marching and thus it is a bit more accurate estimate of distance than judging by eye.  So if one paced off 300 of the common 18th century Military Paces at 22” per pace, then the distance would only be 200 yards. 
 
Now, we don’t know that the ranges mentioned in original military accounts of the distances that Riflemen took their shots were originally done in paces and then later mistakenly written down as yards.  Actually, we don’t know for the most part how they actually measured the distances and then converted them to yards to write them down.  What would be extremely useful for us is if we knew HOW they measured the distance (by estimate or by actually measuring devices) and WHO actually did the measuring for the shots fired and recorded that distance.

Artillery or Engineer Officers of the period were well experienced at estimating ranges in yards.  If either of these Officers did the measuring, we could be pretty confident they recorded the true ranges in original accounts.  Artillery Officers, especially, had to know how to accurately estimate range in a hurry and used this method.   

“An early 18th century method of obtaining range by rough survey: An officer laid out a sub-base of 25, 50 or 100 yards to form a right-angled triangle, if possible, or if not an isosceles triangle.  T=target, G=gun, GB=sub-base. He then measured angles G and B by plane table and sight rule. With these data he was thus able to deduce the angle T and calculate GT. “

http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/smooth3.htm

Time to open a final can of worms for this post.  Grin.  Though Tim Murphy often has been given credit for making two vital 300 to 440 yard shots at the Battle of Saratoga, it seems he was not named as the person who did it and actually 12 riflemen were ordered to shoot at the British General Fraser.  Instead, it might have been an old man at a distance of only 66 yards, who fired the fatal shot. 

http://www.corporatestaffrides.org/files/Murphy.pdf

I think it would be interesting to investigate other written accounts of Long Range Shooting in the 18th century to see if the distances mentioned were indeed fact and not just legend.

Gus

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #92 on: November 16, 2013, 04:28:06 PM »
http://www.corporatestaffrides.org/files/Murphy.pdf

Gus, after reading pages 1044 - 1045 (above link), I see the mention of a Rifleman's rifle most likely being sighted in at 100 yards.  I believe I will do this with my rifle I plan on using to run some test in the Spring, but I may go for a "two inches" high 100 yard zero to allow a little buffer zone.

I believe I will increase my load to 60 grains of 3fg to get to the 1750 (1755) fps muzzle velocity.  The two inches high at 100 yards with my .45 caliber should help offset the difference in drop compared to the .50 caliber mentioned in the link above.  I could actually use a 4" high zero to get even closer, but I personally don't want that wide of window, from 2 to 4 inches.

Again, referring to the link above, I read the General Frazer shot as a (1 in 12) chance of probability.  Now I do find it odd that if the leadership of the Americans didn't want their Riflemen taking shots beyond 150 yards (earlier post) because of the hit probability, why did they assign 12 Rifleman to take out Frazer?  Granted, Frazer would have been an equivalent target of a WWII enemy carrier at the battle of Midway, so an opportunity to take him out would have to be acted on.

Pretty interesting stuff! :)
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #93 on: November 16, 2013, 06:53:17 PM »
CS,

I like your analogy of taking out General Frazer was similar to taking out a carrier at Midway.  The Americans realized that if they could take him out, it would be an extreme blow to the British and it was even more so than I think they thought it would be before he was shot.  Anyway, when a target is that important, it made sense they assigned plenty of Riflemen in hopes of at least one of them hitting him when he was beyond the normal range or at the extreme range of accuracy for a rifle.  IOW, not a lot of risk to the Americans if they didn’t hit him, as opposed to how much they stood to gain by taking him out.  The Americans were counting on luck and sheer numbers of shots fired at General Frazer, as much as the accuracy of each Rifleman. 

What it does tell us is how much “the story changed” from the actual battle and into legend.  Differing later accounts said there were maybe three or four Riflemen shooting at General Frazer and down to just two Riflemen or just Tim Murphy alone.  Instead the actual numbers of Riflemen who were ordered to fire at General Frazer were twelve.  Now, Tim Murphy MAY have actually been the one to have hit General Frazer, but it seems that can’t be proven.  Further, the deeds that Tim Murphy actually did in the rest of the war were so remarkable, it doesn’t matter to me whether he actually made that shot on that day or not. 
Gus

DaveP (UK)

  • Guest
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #94 on: November 16, 2013, 09:35:19 PM »
It seems to me that the idea of a historical confusion between yards and paces might not be justified.
Is it not the case that during the War of Independence the Colonial forces were nearly all militia? If so, it seems unlikely that many men would have spent the necessary hours drilling on the parade ground, learning the standardised movements that allowed European generals to easily manoeuvre blocks ranks and files of men around a battlefield. Without that background, they wouldn't be given to estimating distances in paces.
So perhaps its simply down to people being not very good at estimating distances in yards without specific training in doing so. A man who was familiar with his rifle could be entirely capable of making good decisions about how much hold over to apply without worrying about numbers.
And just to confuse the issue, some of these long shots must have been taken in situations where professionally trained officers had determined the range for artillery purposes...

Hope you don't mind me chipping in. I have been really enjoying this thread and it just seemed a point that might have been overlooked.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #95 on: November 16, 2013, 10:03:12 PM »
The Romans set the "pace" at something over 5 ft if the internet is right. But they measured from where the heel left the ground to where the same heel touched the ground again.
Modern "paces" are 30" +-  as a standard.  28" is ball park for todays measurement.
22" might be for some parade field operation but in the real world it would be very troublesome for me to step 22" and I am not all that tall.

You are right cans of worms tend to increase the knowledge.
So far as the Rifleman being given a distance. This is possible. But a good rifleman would look, think I need to hold about here for a hit and go for it just as I have done for years hunting.
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 #96 on: November 16, 2013, 11:23:14 PM »

So far as the Rifleman being given a distance. This is possible. But a good rifleman would look, think I need to hold about here for a hit and go for it just as I have done for years hunting.
Dan

I agree completely with this, Dan.

A good test of skill would be a range set up with unknown distances to the Rifleman, as the Rifleman would then have to determine his shot through what his hunting experiences had/has taught him.

DaveP, all comments and views are welcome.

I understand what you are saying, but I do believe that colonial militia did meet on Sunday's (after church maybe) to drill, before the war, and had done so for quite some time, no doubt before, during, and after the French & Indian War.

Jumping a head to the ARW, Gen. Washington wanted a "European" type Army, something he finally got during the training at Valley Forge.  I think if we look at just the American Riflemen alone, yes, there was very little discipline and training as they were mostly woodsmen which made them "special forces" type units to a degree who could support, shadow, scout, and out right make hit and run raids on the enemy, the Kings men and hostile Indians.

They (the Riflemen) may very well have exaggerated the distance's shots had been taken at.  Not that hard to imagine that they did do this after the battle while setting around in camp.

However, I believe there are some accounts of the British officers themselves reporting the shots made by American Riflemen, and they would be very aware of the Pace distance as it was a battlefield maneuver of known distance and speed to the foot soldier.  
« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 11:25:30 PM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12671
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #97 on: November 17, 2013, 12:14:54 AM »
Snuffer, I agree that that would be a great test.  But the shooter would need to know the size of the target...eg:  a man's silhouette.  We do a similar thing on our trail walks, emulating hunting situations, where you don't know the distance to the target.  And what makes it more difficult, is not knowing how big the target is.  As an example of this, we have a fouling shot target right at the beginning of our trail, that doubles as a first shot for the pistol trail.  It is a life sized fox silhouette of steel.  A duplicate of the same target hangs down a narrow cut through the trees at position #13, and everyone swears it is the size of a coyote, or even a wolf - not a fox.  The distance is a laser'd 92 yds.  It is a fulfilling shot when you make it.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #98 on: November 17, 2013, 01:25:45 AM »
DaveP,

WELCOME to you or anyone who wants to join in the discussion.

The point you made about militia not estimating range by military paces is well taken and I’m sure correct.  Had the Militia written the reports, the distances would probably not have been in military paces, BUT most of the militia could not read or write with the exception of the Officers (and not all of them could read and write). We know that Dan Morgan could barely read and write when he moved to Virginia as a Lad, but I’m not sure how much advanced in those skills by the battle of Saratoga.  It doesn’t sound like he made out the report, but I can be mistaken.  Of course some tradesmen in the militia could read and write, but they would not have been very familiar with rifle shooting.  So…… we add further conundrums to our puzzle on the reports themselves, such as the following.  

Did the person who wrote the report actually estimate or pace off the distance or did he just write down what others told him?  Of course military reports of the day could be as factual or as fantastic or false as the person writing the report wanted to make it – just as they are today.  However, there was a general sense that reports had to be as accurate as possible to be worthwhile, just as they are today.  I tend to believe that someone doing a Military Report on something as important and unusual as killing such a highly renowned British Officer as General Fraser, and considering how that so tilted the battle to the Americans, would have “checked the facts” by pacing off the distance, if the distance was actually stated in the report and at such extreme range.  Of course I could be mistaken and it is possible that the person just used the estimated distance that was given to him.  Further, it seems in the case of the Timothy Murphy shot, the actual distance may not or was not recorded in the original report at all AND the distance of that shot was later recorded at ranges of 300 to 440 yards?!!  Further, at least one account states the General Fraser was hit when his horse was at full gallop at that range??!!  (This last one, especially. sends my BS meter going off with full alarm.)

Now I could see where a Rifleman who was good at hitting from 150 to 200 yards might have hit General Fraser at 300 yards, IF his horse was not galloping.  I personally discount the 440 yard distance, because the chances of Tim Murphy EVER taking such a shot in hunting or target shooting at that range are so astronomically small, he would not have known how much to hold over to hit at that range.  BUT, there is one thing that was in Tim Murphy’s favor no one has mentioned yet and that was he was ordered to climb a tree to make the shot.  Now, why was that order given and what advantages did it hold?  

Well, the first reason is obvious.  Tim would have been able to look above the clouds of black powder smoke in front of the British when they fired and thus see General Fraser more clearly behind the British ranks.  But here are some additional reason I don’t think many people think about.  When one is up a tree and looking down at the ground to hit a target, it is easier to find a spot on the ground behind the target to aim at, with the correct amount of elevation hold over.  This greatly improves one chances of hitting at longer ranges when having to hold over the target.  When the ground is level between you and the target, it is almost impossible to aim at something that will give enough hold over to hit your target, unless there is a tree or hill behind your target.  Now, Tim would also have had to aim lower than normal because he was shooting at a downward angle.  I’m sure he knew from hunting that when shooting uphill or downhill, one has to aim low on the target or you will miss it.  Taking that into account, he would not have had to hold over as much when shooting down from a tree as he would have had to do if shooting across level ground.  I suggest that would have aided him in hitting at longer ranges.  Finally, when looking down from a tree, it is easier for one to see where a missed shot hit the ground and thus make it easier to “correct” your hold over/aiming point to hit on the next shot, even though one was still looking through black powder smoke from the muzzle of one’s rifle.  When the ground is level between you and the target at that range, it is much harder to see where a missed shot landed.

Gus
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 01:29:21 AM by Artificer »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #99 on: November 17, 2013, 05:12:53 AM »
The Murphy shot, is fully doable. I have described shooting at 285 yards with a 50 cal rifle at a man silhouette from prone.
Its simply not that hard to hit a man at about 300 with a decent RB rifle.  So far as people never needing to shoot that far. On the frontier with the Native and English problem shooting 200 plus over a stockade is not beyond imagining. Some of the natives had rifles and unlike many of the western natives could shoot well.
So how does one deal with THIS threat. Perhaps a native getting balls inside the walls from 200 yards out from a tree top?
In 
These guys shot a lot. They shot matches even at times when ammo was tight. Thinking they never tried shooting 200-300 yards is not realistic.
They didn't have anything else. They didn't know anything else. To me having shot to 300 a few times with 3 different 50 caliber rifles I can tell you that is 3-4 shots there will almost surely be a hit. Nor is power lacking to kill a man.
But today when people never shoot past 50 or 100 with a RB rifle even 150-175 seems like a mile.
We on the other hand have little reason to learn what our rifle do at 200 or 300. I have a number of rifles that are pretty scary at 400-600 yards and I may be shooting a couple of them at 1000 (weather permitting) in early Nov in a match. Until a few years ago I never shot past 150 yards or so. But I got curious about the Murphy shot one day...  I was clueless but a sighter or two in a dusty area 20 yards to one side gave me a "drop" one of three subsequent shots hit the silhouette.
I will sound like a broken record but readers here who have not read Huddleston "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution", LaCrosse "The Frontier Rifleman" and De Witt Bailey "British Military Flintlock Rifles" chapters 5 and 6, NEED TO.
In 1756 Edward Shippen writing that in an engagement with savages he would rather have a rifle than a SB "..for at 150 yards distance with one I can put a ball within a foot or Six Inches of ye mark..." So in 1756 this guy knows he can likely hit a man at 150 yards. Now has he PRACTICED or at least shot at this distance? Sounds like it.
In the west in the 1840s-50s some rifles (at least one original a friend shot) were apparently sighted for 150 yards. But this is not Pennsylvania or Kentucky. And shots at 120-150 are not unknown even today when there are far more trees.
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine