Rifle Accuracy 1776

[willyr]

Gus- I didn't intend to be contrary. It is always a pleasure to read your posts on this board because your posts are always backed up by good research.
Be Well,
Bill

[Artificer]

Gus- I didn't intend to be contrary. It is always a pleasure to read your posts on this board because your posts are always backed up by good research.
Be Well,
Bill

Bill,

I know we can’t get the feel of what others mean when we read what they write, as opposed to speaking to them.  Please understand I never took your posts as “contrary.” 

Also, I look forward to others bringing new or different information/opinions/experience to a discussion.  If our information is never challenged, or worse we don’t have as much information as possible, we can’t learn. 

Thanks for posting in this section and thanks for the kind words.
Gus

[Artificer]

Hi CS,

Thanks for the kind words on my posts.

I’m not sure even in such ideal conditions, if the lone rifleman mentioned by Major Hanger could identify which of the two British Officers was Tarleton.  400 yards is a long way to make a personal identification when both Officers’ uniforms matched so closely.  MAYBE if Tarleton was known to ride a certain color horse, he might have been identified at that distance?  There are a lot of things we don’t know about this incident, though.

1.  We don’t know how long the two British Officers and “Bugle Horn Man” were reconnoitering the ground ahead of them.  I have nothing to document this on, but I get the impression it wasn’t long and perhaps only a few minutes.  (Every time I read this account, I get a kick out of Major Hanger using the term “Bugle Horn Man” instead of “Bugler.”  Maybe Bugler is a later period term? )

2.  I think Major Hanger would have remarked if there were other American troops nearby or at least any he or Tarleton saw.  Since no other Americans were mentioned, it sounds like the American Rifleman was perhaps in a small scouting party and the others did not show themselves?  Maybe the American Rifleman was a lone sentry or scout that was at the furthest edge of where other Americans were or were moving into that area? 

3.  I also get a kick out of the fact both Officers probably watched the American move into and take up a good firing position with what seems like little regard.  I get the impression they were not concerned so much as curious.  They probably figured the American being alone and so far away, was no threat and stayed to see if other Americans showed themselves?  I can visualize them thinking, “Now what is THIS impetuous ruffian think he is doing?” or something to that effect.  GRIN.

4.  I’m SURE their attitudes changed when the Rifleman’s ball passed between them and the Bugle Horn Man cried out his horse was shot.  Grin.  Of course they knew that in the time it would take to load a rifle or musket, they could easily move so as to no longer provide the Rifleman with targets.

As to Captain Lowdon’s company all being able to consistently place a ball in a 7” target at 250 yards, yes, I have a hard time believing that as well.  I looked it up and in the following link, I lost count, but it looks like there were around 80 men in that company.  That is a LOT of men to ALL be able to shoot that well and do it consistently.
http://files.usgwarchives.net/pa/northumberland/areahistory/bell0005.txt

I’ve spent so many years using Minute of Angle to define accuracy, that I have to convert that level of shooting to just under 3 MOA.  Now to shoot like that, you have to be able to put a ball consistently in about a One to Two inch circle at 100 yards because group size will open up the further the range is.  I think that is “doable” at 100 yards from a prone rest with a really accurate period rifle, but 80 men all from one county and ALL being able to do it consistently on the first shot?  That significantly strains credulity. 

OK, so MOA may not mean much to many of us, so I looked up the average size of the modern male human head and it is 9 inches long by 6 inches wide.  The average British soldier was about two to three inches shorter than we are today, so their average head size would have been slightly smaller.  So this level of accuracy for Captain Lowdon’s men is CLOSE to them all being able to consistently make a head shot at 250 yards. 

Major George Hanger related that ONLY the BEST and/or Most Expert American Riflemen could make a head shot at 200 yards, or 50 yards closer.  Using that as a guide, it sounds like the claim for Captain Lowdon’s Company is, shall we say, a GOOD bit exaggerated?  Grin. 

Now, I’m sure someone will write or be thinking that these men all grew up with rifles, knew where they hit a different ranges, etc., etc.  Well, that only goes so far and while I’m sure most of them were fine shots within the 110 to 120 yard maximum point blank range of the rifle, I still don’t believe all 80 men in the company could have done that.  Here’s why:

In 1975, I was the Junior Armorer to THE Marine Corps Rifle Summer Team.  ALL our NM M14’s then were capable of under or slightly over 2 MOA because we tested them on our super expensive bench rest machines, so that means that the rifles held between 6 to 7 inches at 300 yards for a TEN shot group.  This equals or betters what ALL the period Longrifles in Captain Lowdon’s would have HAD to been able to shoot to get the kind of accuracy attributed to them. 

We had about 65 shooters on the Team that came from all over the Marine Corps strength of about 200,000 in those days.  Every shooter had to have “medaled” or shot well enough in a Division Match and The Marine Corps Match to qualify to get on the Summer Team.  Maybe as many as 15 of them were “first year NM shooters,” so I throw them out and that leaves 50 shooters.  Throw another 10 of the less accurate shooters out to get down to the 40 BEST shooters and that is only half the strength of Captain Lowden’s company.  These shooters probably averaged about 30 years in age, so they had a LOT of experience firing from 200 to 1,000 yards. 

Further, these shooters were outfitted with heavy leather shooting coats, shooting glasses, leather slings to steady their aim, shooting gloves and mats, scopes and all kinds of gear including a number of range flags to read the wind that an 18th century Rifleman could only have DREAMED of using.  They practiced EVERY day on our 1,000 yard range for about 3 months with only the 4th of July off or when we traveled to different ranges.  They fired 120 to 200 rounds a day every day they were not at matches or the single day off, though that was at different ranges.  They also dry fired those nights they practiced for about an hour most of the time.   Still, they had PLENTY of practice shooting prone at 300 yards AND had written down exact sight settings for many different wind/light/other range conditions.  The value of that was they would look at the range flags, check temperature and humidity, etc., etc. and then go to their data book to see EXACTLY what sight setting would center their first round on target.

The 300 yard target then was still the old “V” ring target where the bullseye was 12 inches and the “tie breaking V ring” inside that was 6 “.  (The modern tie breaking “X” ring is only THREE inches at 300 yards.)  Compare this 12” black bullseye at 300 yards with the 7” target at 250 yards that Captain Lowdon’s troops shot at. 

Let’s say I had gone up to those 40 of our BEST shooters in August after they had LOADS of practice firing 300 yard prone with their rifles and had the recorded data for that range down pat.  How many of them could with certainty put a FIRST round into a 12” black bullseye at 300 yards?  All of them?  No, probably as many as 30 of them, though.  Now let’s go to the V ring that was 6 inches at 300 compared to the 7 inches at 250 for Captain Lowdon’s men.  Remember, MOST of our rifles held a group size that would have fit inside the V ring IF the shooter did his part.  How many of them could have made that V ring on their first round with certainty?  MAYBE 15 to 20 of them and that included those who had already won different NM trophies and matches and were already Distinguished Riflemen. 

Now Marines on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team were some of the BEST shots in the country, let alone one county in Pennsylvania.  If only 20 to 30 of them could match the supposed accuracy of Captain Lowdon’s 80 man Rifle Company, then Captain Lowdon’s Company were some kind of Super Men or Demi Gods. 

So, no, I can not possibly believe that all 80 of Captain Lowdon’s company could have shot in a 7” circle at 250 yards with certainty.  Just NOT possible, in my opinion and experience.
Gus

[Artificer]

CS,

I just went back and re-read the quote from Major/Colonel Hanger on the 400 yard shot.  I realized I missed something that pertains to a question you asked about why the American did not send more than one Rifleman to shoot at Tarleton.

It’s remarkable to me, but for so short a quote, I keep finding things I missed before or realize things later on.  Here’s the part of the quote that pertains to your earlier question:

“Colonel, now General Tarleton, and myself were standing a few yards out of a wood, observing the situation of a part of the enemy which we intended to attack.”

I’m sorry, but it just dawned on me that “part of the enemy” could/would mean the British Officers did indeed see more than just one Rifleman.  It sounds like they saw at least the disposition of some of the American forces and were probably sizing up the situation on how best to attack. 

I just can’t find anything in the quote that may tell us the Rifleman was sent from a group or not.  Original accounts tell us that American Rifleman were often in groups of about 12, as in the Tim Murphy shot account.  Today such a group would be a squad, but having studied 18th century Drill Manuals (that we Americans also used), the smallest break down of a Company mentioned was Platoon size and more men than that.  Now a “Mess” was 5-6 men with a Corporal in charge when the units were at full strength and this number was due to men assigned with each other for receiving issued rations (food) and cooking them, hence the term “Mess.” 

I have never been able to document it, but I have always suspected that “details” for chores or working parties were assigned by Messes, because it is easier to split up and assign the men of a Platoon that way.  Scouting parties may have been made up of one or two “Messes” (or more as the Officers saw fit) so MAYBE the American Rifleman was out there from a group of 5 to 12 other Riflemen and maybe only 5?  (Gosh this seems a convoluted way to try to come up with how many men may have been with him, but this is how I come up with my best guess from the way period soldiers were assigned.  Grin.)

If the American Rifleman was indeed there with the other men in his mess, they could have had everyone in the mess shoot at the British Officers and you are right they probably would have done so.  Of course, if there were other riflemen there, MAYBE they thought this Rifleman was the only one good enough shot to hit at 400 yards?  OR it could be we are back to the theory that the lone Rifleman was on Sentry Duty or forward scout and thus there all by himself.  We will most likely never know for sure.
Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

Hi Gus,

That was the way I read it, so it puzzled me why only one Rifleman attempted the shot?  It very well could have been as you suggested, perhaps he was the best shot?  When putting this into prospective, the Rifleman did send a message to those British Officer's, and obviously the Officer's did have to cut their observations short as one round ball from four football field lengths away sent them, back into the woods.

I look at that particular shot as a high risk shot, but thinking about it (though I'm confident it was one of the men he was going after), the American Rifleman did deprive the British Army of one horse, and no doubt made the "Bugle Horn Man" a bit anxious.    

[Rkymtn57]

I have a very interesting documented account from my grandfathers best friend Henry Jolly who I believe was in his mess. Maybe someone can google his story and get it posted.
He was very nearby when Arnold was shot in the leg.
They were in the 8th. Pa. regiment. Morgan /Swearingen
I just need to learn how to post it here , Ill work on it.  D

[Rkymtn57]

Lets see if this works....  Anyone?

http://www.mydunrovin.net/jollyfamily.htm

[Rkymtn57]

I have more but am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post
this personal history of Henry Jolly and the movements of these riflemen. D

[Elnathan]

I have been doing a little research, and it seems pretty likely that the incident under discussion took place in 1780 in South Carolina. Hanger was Tarleton's second in command during the Southern Campaign, and only was transferred to the British Legion after the fall of Charlestown . He was wounded in September 1780 while skirmishing with Davies' militia in Charlotte, NC (Tarleton being sick at the time, Hanger was in command and decided that a headlong cavalry charge was the best way to deal with men behind a stone wall. Not the best idea.) He fell ill shortly afterwards with yellow fever, and seems to have not rejoined the Legion before it was captured at Yorktown, according to his autobiography. Ergo, the only August that he and Tarleton served together was that of 1780.

During the first half of August 1780, the British Legion was scouting for Cornwallis’s main army, I think - they were with Cornwallis until after the battle of Camden on August 15. I doubt that the incident took place then, as the two armies seem to have pretty much walked right up to each other without much preliminary skirmishing. The day after, however, Tarleton was sent after Thomas Sumpter and caught up with him on at Fishing Creek on the 18th, destroying his army in a surprise attack. I don’t think the situation Hanger describes could have taken place prior to Fishing Creek, so it probably took place during last part of August after Fishing Creek and before Tarleton’s illness in early September.

The most likely candidate for the rifleman, therefore, is a South Carolina militiaman, possibly one of Sumpter’s men that survived Fishing Creek or perhaps one of Davies’ men. He would not have been one of the groups involved at Musgrove Mills or at King’s Mountain, I think - those were busy with Ferguson‘s force to the west during this time. I also think it likely that the British Legion had rejoined Cornwallis and were scouting/skirmish ahead of the main army when the shot was taken, but that is just a guess on my part.

Someone with access to a good unit history of the British Legion might be able to pin it down further - I am relying on Buchanan’s Road to Guildford Courthouse to the movements of British Legion, and he doesn’t give a comprehensive account of what they were doing during this period.

Hanger’s autobiography is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=plUDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=general+george+hanger&source=bl&ots=E3ZJzh7FBh&sig=RmnTFZZyZs_VAMX36RjULKSmS9U&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PFyNUsWWMrb-4AO2rYG4Bg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&q=general%20george%20hanger&f=false

Pages 401-10 contain the relevant portions of his life, as well as some imaginatively nasty commentary on the habits and character of the backwoods settlers.


All this assumes that Hanger got the month correct! I think he did, though.

[Elnathan]

I have more but am not sure if this is the appropriate place to post
this personal history of Henry Jolly and the movements of these riflemen. D

I think folks would be interested indeed, but you might want to start a new thread for it since it doesn't directly bear on the subject of this thread.

[Artificer]

Elnathan,

Very interesting research on the place the incident Major Hanger described the 400 yard shot.  Thank you.  The information you provided about Tarleton being sick in September explains some of the gap in his actions between Fishing Creek and Blackstock’s Farm/Hill.  

For those interested and who like myself sometimes need a chronology to better understand events and when they took place, I decided to do the following list and hope it may be found useful by others.

Some of Banastre Tarleton’s movements in the Southern Campaign

1780
Waxhaw Massacre, May 29

Camden, August 15

Fishing Creek, August 18

MODIFIED TO ADD: Late August    400 YARD shot described by Major Hanger, as Elnathan suggests.

Blackstock’s Farm/Hill,  Nov 20

1781
Cowpens,  January 17  (Most of Tarleton’s force captured or killed except for about 250 men)

Cowan's Ford Skirmish,  February 1

Guilford Courthouse,  March 15

Attempt to capture Thomas Jefferson, May ?

Surrendered Yorktown/ Gloucester Point     October

Gus

[Artificer]

PS
I have pressed modern "tight" loads into the muzzle with a knife handle too.
So pressing a patched ball into the muzzle with a knife handle does not equate to "loose".

Dan

Sure, there is plenty of mechanical advantage in using a knife handle to start a very tight fitting ball/patch combination into a rifle bore.  HOWEVER, it does not seat the ball very deep in the bore and not nearly as deep as with a short starter at three to four (or more) inches.  It also makes getting the ball to begin down the barrel tougher if the patch/ball combination is tight, because of the tendency for the ramrod end to slip off the ball when it is that close to the muzzle.

I don’t doubt that some FEW rifles will shoot with a patched/ball combination that can be easily loaded with just a ramrod and no short starter, BUT that’s not the general consensus on MOST rifles here or in other threads on accurate shooting.  

The short starter pushing the ball down three to four inches compresses the patch material more to fit the lands and especially the grooves, compared to just pushing the patched ball below the surface of the muzzle.  That is the really important aspect of using the short starter.  Of secondary importance using the short starter is getting the ball down far enough that one is less likely to snap/crack the ramrod because the ball/patch is thus compressed and further down the bore where it is easier to align and push the ramrod down the bore without bending the ramrod too much or slipping and really bending it too much that will cause a cracked or broken ramrod.

Our tight patch/ball combinations today can compel us to wipe the bore between shots on the tightest patch/ball combinations to maybe every three shots or at most five shots – to be able to ram down these tight fitting combinations.  That is NOT how tight one would want any more than the FIRST patch/ball loaded in war time, because it would be so difficult to reload quickly.  It also doesn’t seem likely they had patching material or pre cut patches in one’s pouch of two different thicknesses where one thickness was very tight for the first round and looser patches for the follow up rounds (especially considering they didn’t have a wide variety of thickness of patch material/cloth), unless they had a divided pouch to separate the two sizes of patches.  Even so in the fog of war, one could easily grab the WRONG patch size and thus not get reloaded in time to be effective or save one’s skin with an advancing enemy.  

Gus

[DaveP (UK)]

As a non hunter, ignorance results in my being very impressed by the result of this shot. I understand that a round ball loses energy rapidly in flight although this can be offset by its very good terminal ballistic properties
All the same, the near instant death of an animal the size of a horse at the sort of range we are talking about does seem, well, surprising.
As I said, I don't know any better - but I started wondering if this might shed any light on the actual range...

[Candle Snuffer]

“I think we had better move or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, amusing themselves at our ex pence.” The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle-horn man said, “Sir, my horse is shot.” The horse staggered, fell down and died. He was shot directly behind the fore-leg, near to the heart, at least where the great blood-vessels lie, which lead to the heart. He took the saddle and bridle off, went into the wood, and got another horse.

This would explain bringing down the horse, Dave.  I can almost visualize the "Bugle Horn Man" reining in his horse as it staggers under him - all the while with the blood pumping out of the animal as it was bleeding out through that artery.  I can see him stepping off the horse as it is going down - then him recovering his saddle.

I've never shot a deer beyond 80-90 yards, and with my 80 grain load of 2fg while using a .535 patched round ball has always blew right through the deer's lungs.  Not a good comparison compared to horse hide and the distance at which the "Bugle Horn Man's" horse was hit and went down - eventually.  

[Artificer]

Something else that “suggests” most American Riflemen could not reliably hit a man at 300 yards, and perhaps 200 yards as the maximum “reliable” range to do it, is how the Riflemen were tactically deployed.   

Before I go further, I have to note that we don’t have an extremely good idea of how Riflemen were deployed in many battles.  It is often recorded they were supported by Light Infantry and that makes good sense to protect them from bayonet wielding British.  Also because light infantry and their tactics, though still being “hashed out” at the time, was perhaps the closest thing Senior Officers trained in Continental Style Linear Tactic Battles, could come up with at the time?  I’ve often wondered if those older/senior Officers thought, “OK, I’ve got Riflemen, now how the HECK do I deploy (use) them on the battlefield?” 

I’m going to suggest Saratoga was the most important “Learning Battle” on how to use Riflemen, early in the War.  The American Commanding General Gates buggered about and waited three hours till almost noon before doing anything and finally sent the Riflemen out ahead in what we might call a “Reconnaissance in Force” today.  This demonstrates he was using them as Light Infantry.  I could be wrong, but I take it they were then used on one or both flanks, where they could “melt into” the forest when pressed hard by bayonet wielding British.  However, with the way Gates covered up how important Arnold was to the battle and Gates general incompetence shown there, maybe Gates learned little of how to best deploy Riflemen?

IF American Riflemen WERE able to reliably hit British Soldiers at 300 yards and I was the commander, I would have them in the FRONT lines and laying down in good shooting positions, at the start of every battle.  I would have them spread out in one long line so as not to allow them to be butchered by British Artillery and so they could reload and fire as quickly and accurately as possible.   I would form at least one line of Infantry not far behind them, so they could fall back/retreat in good order beside/behind the Infantry to support them and they could reform and continue shooting, when the British advanced and got too close.  Used this way, Riflemen could take out two or three opposing Infantry each, BEFORE they got close enough to hurt the Riflemen.  However, there are two big problems with that one has to prepare for, or it could mean disaster.

The first problem is the Riflemen and their Officers HAVE to have some discipline and the Riflemen must be confident their Officers will move them back when required.  American Riflemen showed very poor or no discipline in the earlier battles in New York and were actually shamed there, before Saratoga.  The second problem is you have to have disciplined Infantry behind the Riflemen and that was not something the Americans had until after Von Steuben trained them.   

It seems it took an experienced Rifleman, as the Commanding General of American forces at a battle, to not only best deploy American Rifleman, but ALSO come up with tactics that would beat disciplined British forces “at their own game.”  I’m referring to Dan Morgan at Cowpens.  He DID place riflemen in the front rank, the Militia in the second rank and his seasoned veterans in the third rank.   When the British attacked they were already fatigued from a lot of rapid marching prior to the battle and malnourished.  The Riflemen did them damage, and the British advanced through them and thought they had driven away the Riflemen as normal.  This tired the British more.  Then the Brits received a few volleys from the Militia that hurt them and then it seemed the American Militia ran away as normal.  Still that tired the Brits even more, though they THOUGHT they were winning the battle and continued their advance. THAT’S when they came upon the THIRD line of Americans and THIS time it was seasoned American Infantry, who were not afraid to stand and fight and who were NOT tired and hungry.  Though the British tried a flanking movement, it was repulsed though in a somewhat confused fashion.  The Brits must have been really exhausted at this point and the volley/s and charge of American Regulars with bayonets did them in.  Tarleton then ordered his Cavalry Legion to attack, but they ‘RAN AWAY.”  The result was the destruction and capture of most of the British force.  An American RIFLEMAN who commanded all the Americans that day, taught the American Army how to beat the British at their own game.

Now it was amazing that Dan Morgan could even come to that battle, as he was suffering so much from sciata or back problems even before the battle.  He must have been in great pain during the battle, as he had to finally retire from the war immediately after the battle.  It was a Godsend that General Nathaniel Greene used Morgan’s basic tactics at Guilford Courthouse against Lord Cornwallis.  Lord Cornwallis was one of , if not the best British Field Commander in the War.  Cornwallis was only able to “win” the battle by having his much superior artillery forces fire over and into his own troops to save the British that day.  Though Cornwallis won, it was such a pyrrhic victory with such losses in men and supplies, it set up his march to Yorktown and defeat there. 

And all this begun by an experienced American RIFLEMAN who taught the American Army how to beat the British at their own game.
Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

As a non hunter, ignorance results in my being very impressed by the result of this shot. I understand that a round ball loses energy rapidly in flight although this can be offset by its very good terminal ballistic properties
All the same, the near instant death of an animal the size of a horse at the sort of range we are talking about does seem, well, surprising.
As I said, I don't know any better - but I started wondering if this might shed any light on the actual range...

DaveP, I was talking with a rancher today and I asked him how thick skinned a horse's hide is?  He told me it's not as tuff as a cow hide.  Even barbed wire can tear a horse up pretty bad...  So bullet / ball penetration most likely would not have been a problem when it struck this horse, and it would seem no bone was hit when this happened.

Gus, I think I could read your post every day.  Quite interesting!

[smylee grouch]

Was that bugle boys horse killed instantly or did it take some time to expire?

[Elnathan]

Was that bugle boys horse killed instantly or did it take some time to expire?

Sounds to me like it died fairly quickly, but not instantly - the bugler had time to realize his horse was hit, inform his superiors, and disentangle himself enough that he wasn't caught beneath the horse as it fell. It could have been longer, though - Hanger isn't particularly clear.

I think there are too many unknown variables (the caliber of the rifle ball, the exact arteries cut, the size of the horse, etc) for the death of the horse to be informative.

 

[Dphariss]

There are several things to consider.
From what I have read most shooting was done from a rest in the 18th c.
First many of the various newspaper accounts of the time here and in England are somewhat blown out of proportion as to accuracy etc. Propaganda is the modern term. Newspapers are full of BS to this day.
But still we have the other accounts, letters, journals etc.
We find that shots past 150 yards were discouraged at least in some locales.
For good reason. Many rifle owners, then and now, are not all that proficient. So some likely can't hit a man past 100-150 yards either do to lack of skill, eyesight, care in loading, state of the rifles bore etc.
Then we have wind etc etc.
So saying that ALL rifleman could hit a man a 200 is not realistic. That any rifleman could hit a man at 200 under any condition is not realistic since unless the shooter is REALLY good at reading wind.
A very light wind can have profound effects on the RB and a wind so light as to be unreadable can really move a ball at ranges past 50-75 yards.
So we have to temper all the old newspaper stories with current experience or more believable accounts.
The rifles were reasonably accurate the round ball is the same as then, the powder is better but this is not a major factor. So we can use todays experiences. A friend tells me that he could hit a 30" gong at about 500 pretty often with his 54 once he found the aiming point many feet up the rocky bluff behind it.
Where was the Bugleman's horse hit? The right spot at the base of the throat is quickly fatal from the front. However, we are not going to know. But we have to remember the "golden BB" theory sometimes luck, good or bad depending on which side of the muzzle one is on, trumps skill and even power. Nor will we know how big the ball was. But Hanger tells us he never saw an American rifle larger than 36 to the pound. Now we know this is not 100 percent accurate but I think its pretty close for "typical".  I consider bores over 50-52 to be getting into "non-typical". But this does not mean non-existent. It means that for the uses at hand a 50 caliber is a good compromise and many rifles of the period are smaller than this, 44-47 for example. The rifle that J.J. Henry replaced his lost rifle with carried a ball of about 48 caliber and seems to larger than the rifle he lost from his comments.
So rifles in the "40s" were not unusual. The rifle was also short barreled.
So go out and SHOOT. If we can do it today chances are it was doable back in the day by a competent rifleman. People who demand absolute proof? Go find a shootable original FL rifle. Make some powder similar to what was available. Cast some balls of the right size from an original mould. Cost too much? Then the findings of seen in Dillon and Cline which seem to show good accuracy, there are even surviving targets from the 1830s,  are going to have to do coupled with shooting with todays rifles and powders. If this is not good enough then the person with the questions is just SOL unless they have really deep pockets, a detailed knowledge of powder making in 1770-80 and is an expert rifle shot as icing on the cake.
Myself I have never seen a reason to doubt various accounts unless they are beyond what modern experience indicates. So a 300 yard shot? One hit in three? Sure.
400 yards? My friend's experience on another friends 500+ yard gong years ago says its possible. Remember that three men on horses is a big target. Deep and wide.

Dan

[Artificer]

“A friend tells me that he could hit a 30" gong at about 500 pretty often with his 54 ONCE HE FOUND THE AIMING POINT MANY FEET UP THE ROCKY BLUFF BEHIND IT.”

That’s fine on a target work environment when you can shoot enough to find that aiming point, but unless there WAS a high bluff or even a high tree right behind a British Soldier even at 400 yards to get the correct aiming point AND the shooter had time to make enough ranging shots, such a shot is only by pure luck.  (This may have actually occurred as far as the aiming point goes on the 400 yard shot recorded by Major Hanger BECAUSE Colonel Tarleton and he were only a few yards from the woods behind them and there MAY have been a tall tree to aim at behind them.)  Further, your friend had no doubt ranged the distance ahead of time, did he not?  Not possible in war time.  Ranging shots in war time are misses and unless you can see WHERE the misses landed, which is rarely to never possible on a battlefield, you can’t adjust your hold to hit like you can on a target environment.  Even someone good at guessing distance can’t guess it correctly that far over many different battlefields. 

Of course better modern powder means a more accurate shot and that makes modern long range shooting more possible. 

Major Hanger stated he had interviewed MANY American Riflemen and THEY said that only their best and most expert marksmen could hit a man’s head at 200 yards.  ONLY THE BEST Riflemen.  Could even that small a percentage of American Riflemen have made “One out of Three shots fired at 300 yards?”  Maybe a truly exceptional rifleman, but I can’t buy even most of the FEW of most expert riflemen could do it.  They were not shooting on a range where they knew the distance and could make the same hold over for long range hits.  Even if the distance remains the same, every battle is going to be a different temperature, humidty, wind requirements, etc., etc., etc.and that means it is even harder to make such a shot.  As stated in one of my previous posts, a FIRST shot hit within a 12 inch circled AFTER shooters have lots of experience firing on a  known distance range is not a sure bet. 

400 yards?  Your friend’s experience PROVES it nothing but sheer luck on different battlefields, because they did not have the opportunity to fire ranging shots and figure out where to aim IF they had a hill or tall tree to aim at behind the enemy they were shooting at.

The information from the 1830’s was also taken from KNOWN DISTANCE ranges, were they not?  They no doubt had established the distance and aiming point with aiming shots, did they not?  They may or even probably used short starters in that period on target ranges as well.  Same problems there already mentioned about your friend’s RANGE time as well.

Gus

[bob in the woods]

If you spend a lot of time in the field, you can get pretty good at distancing things based on their size.  I know that the average size of a moose is " X" and I have successfully estimated distance accurately out to 400 yds. I know what a moose looks like at that distance and since it's pretty close to a horse, I'm sure those riflemen back then would know too.
I also use my rifle enough that I have a pretty darn good idea about sight picture ...at least out to 300 yds. That is the distance of my range out back.
I would not discount the ability of the riflemen of that time. I fully believe that they knew what they were doing, and although you need a degree of luck , I sure wouldn't want them shooting at me even if the distance was 300 to 400 yds

[omark]

This malarky about needing an aiming point above the target is just that. I NEVER use an aiming point above the target. I shoot with both eyes open and can see the target even if it is below line of sight. Just always done it that way and while I never competed in formal long range target shooting, I was a pretty darn good shot in my younger years. Killed a lot of game and tin cans using "Kentucky". And many of those shots were at unknown ranges. Matter of fact, I am not a very good judge of distances, I just pull the firearm up and shoot when it looks right. I know that isn't very scientific, its more instinctive. I won't claim to be a top shoot, but I am or was much better than the average.    Mark

[Artificer]

Mark, what ranges were you shooting at and what kind of rifles were you using?  If the range was 110 - 120 yards you would not need to hold over.  At 200 yards, s little hold over is necessary, but at 300 yards you have to hold 6 feet over the 200 yard sight setting. 
Gus

[Artificer]

Before I go further, I have to point out that even hitting a 30” circle often at 500 yards WHEN the correct aiming point was found by using ranging shots to get your aiming point at 500 yards on a 30" circle, that does NOT transfer to combat accuracy.  A man’s torso is on average only HALF that width or less and the height of a man’s torso is only about 22.”  IOW, one could hit that 30” target in many places it would have been a MISS on a man.

Bob,

Your suggestion that by noting the average size of game, you can give an approximation of range does make sense to a degree. 

I can’t remember if I posted in this thread or another thread how I stumbled across an original 19th century account in some of my Civil War books on how they determined range by what parts of the human body can be distinguished.  At longer distances you first can pick out the legs and as the range decreases; you can pick out the arms, the differentiate between the upper or lower parts of the arms, then n the hands, then the fingers at fairly close range, right down to where you can see “the whites of their eyes” at very close range where a volley of flintlock smoothbore muskets will tear apart an enemy linear formation with aimed fire as they did at the Battle of Breed’s Hill or Bunker Hill.  I copied the information and gave it to the Instructors at the Marine Corps Scout Sniper Instructor School, but DID NOT tell them where the information came from because they had a tendency to shrug off some older information.  They came back that afternoon and I got a very excited call from them that it WORKED and where in the (Heck) did I get the information?  That’s when I told them where it came from.  They actually included that information in range estimating classes from then on and that was in the mid 1980’s. 

Now I don’t know if the average 18th century rifleman knew that, but he most certainly had some good knowledge of how tall the average British Soldier was at an average of 5 feet, 6 inches.  THAT information was highly useful for a 300 yard shot, btw, IF the American Rifleman spent time shooting at 300 yards in practice.  300 yard shooting was not anywhere close to the ranges they often fired at target matches, but some could have tried some ranging shots at that distance.  The reason that information was useful is because the average height of a British Soldier was ALMOST the amount of drop a round ball bullet drops from 200 yards to 300 yards, even though it was ½ foot to 1 foot shy of the bullet drops listed in the tables in this thread and other places.  Before we use this information more, I must suggest we drop back a bit to hitting at 200 yards.

Let’s start with what seems to be the agreed maximum point blank range of a Long rifle at 110 to 120 yards.  The bullet drops a couple inches under two feet more from 100 yards to 200 yards.  THAT means if the Rifleman aimed at the upper part of the head of an enemy soldier, the ball would land in his chest or abdomen and both would have been killing or extremely disabling shots.  HERE there is a SOLID aiming point on the enemy soldier for the correct elevation, so it SEEMS like that would be a rather easy shot for an experienced Rifleman because of the solid aiming point.  We are only talking about elevation adjustment here and we are not including how far “groups” opened up at 200 yards, however, it seems that if the rifle shot was centered on the enemy’s head and the wind and other factors didn’t drastically alter the bullet’s flight, it would stay in the average width of a British Soldier’s torso of about 12 – 13 inches when fired at 300 yards.  The PROBLEM with this thinking is American Soldiers missed so often beyond 150 yards, that it tells us most of them DID NOT have practice shooting at 300 yards.  However, let’s take what the BEST marksmen of the American Riflemen could do to reliably hit a man’s head at 200 yards and extend our range from there.

The problem is UNLIKE 200 yard shooting where one has a SOLID aiming point on the human body, one must hold WAY over the top of the head of the enemy soldier at 300 yards to hit him.  Here’s another point where shooting many MODERN made flintlock rifles can lead to erroneous information.  Today we often or even usually use front and rear sights that are HIGHER than the original front sight blades and that’s a problem.  With our higher front sight blades, it may be possible to line up the middle or bottom of the front sight blades for longer range, but it is less likely original shorter front sight blades will allow one to do that and get an accurate sight picture to aim.  If the front sight is not tall enough to use the bottom of the front sight to aim in at longer ranges, then you are in a real mess and you have to hold over the target at which you are shooting and not actually SEE the target when you fire the shot.  Bad juju for accurate shooting there.

OK, so if the front sight blade is not tall enough to use the bottom of the blade at 300 yards, then one is stuck holding over the target where you can’t see the target because you have to hold over at least the height of a soldier (and a bit more) to drop the ball into the enemy’s chest or abdomen.  If thee is no hill or large rock or tree right behind the soldier, even KNOWING you have to sight the full height of a man over your target doesn’t do much good even if you go back and forth a few times between the target and hold over.  Even with the knowledge of how much hold over one has to use, it becomes more a matter of luck that the rifle will go off when aimed at the correct elevation.  Also, we are ASSUMING there is virtually a perfect sight picture when the shot goes off.  How many times does THAT happen in the real world?  As noted earlier, if one is up in a tree and can look DOWN at the target, there is a better chance of being able to pick out a spot on the ground that was the height of a man plus a bit OVER a soldier’s head at 300 yards to AIM AT and thus have the best chance of hitting one’s target.  Unfortunately, trees were not always available to climb into to make that shot, though.

Another thing we haven’t discussed is that American Riflemen no doubt aligned their sights, but HOW did they do it?  DID they align the very top of their front sight blade with the top of their rear sight?  Or did they have the front sight a little higher than that when they normally aimed?  If one is in the woods, I suspect they held the front sight a little over the top of the rear sight to better see it, though that may not be true.  All we know is that normally to get the most accurate groups and shots today, we use the top of the front sight aligned to the top of the rear. 

Now here is where we have to add in the stress of combat that one NEVER has when shooting targets at long range on a rifle range.  Those of us who have shot competition know we often or usually don’t shoot as well during matches as we do in practice.  This is because there is added pressure in even informal target matches.  However, that is no where NEAR the stress pressure in combat that makes perfect sight alignment distance judging less to far less accurate than in hunting.  Most people when talking about shooting at 300 yards or more today don’t have that added stress pressure because no one is shooting at them or even likely to be shooting at them.

What we have NOT discussed is the Bullet Drop from 200 to 400 yards or the drop distance between 300 and 400 yards.  We know the drop distance between 200 and 300 yards was a little more than an average British Soldier’s height, so how much more does it drop at 400?  Another average British Soldier’s height?  I doubt it and suppose it was MORE than that, though I don’t have the drop tables to prove it.  So when they tried a 400 yard shot, that would mean they had to hold over the enemy soldier by AT LEAST TWO full heights of the average British Soldier, if not almost certainly MORE than that.  How do you find a QUICK aiming point for that on the battlefield?  The answer is most of the time you don’t, it just isn’t possible most of the tme.  This and wind deflection is what makes hitting at 400 yards on a battlefield SHEER luck even when done by the very best marksmen of the day. 


Finally I go back to the post I wrote that not even the BEST Riflemen on The Marine Corps Rifle Team in 1975 could GUARANTEE a first round hit at the 12” bullseye at 300 yards almost 200 years after our time period and when they most certainly had rifles that were capable of shooting HALF that group size if the shooters held it that well.  Maybe some have missed the fact that the 12” bullseye mentioned is the approximate width of a man’s torso???  Also, that range was definitely KNOWN and the the shooters HAD the correct sight settings to hit the center of that 12” bullseye at 300 yards.  While maybe ¾ of those shooters could guarantee a first round hit in the bullseye, they had an immense advantage over Riflemen of our time period. 

Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

Let me throw this link out here.  Take note of the 200 yard shooting by, D. Taylor Sapergia, with his flintlock.  I think this is pretty telling of 200 yard accuracy that can be expected with the round ball.  Taylor is revered as a good shot with a flintlock, and his target IMHO is good.  This was done when we use to keep a "Thread" (here on ALR) for those wanting to give 200 yard round ball a try. 

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=3533.msg58825#msg58825