Rifle Accuracy 1776

[D. Bowman]

I've been following this thread with great interest. I hope to add something from a shooters point of view.
A few years ago one of our local clubs held a side match at the end of a days shooting. They called it the Tim Murphy shoot. The target was a steel silhouette upper torso painted like a British officer. The range was set at 200 yards ( longest that could be safely shot at this club). There were about 15 regular shooters.
The rules : Flintlock only load and shoot from the bag and horn (no tackle box shooters)
offhand only
Shoot one shot, hit and move to next round miss and yer out
Weather was overcast with a 10 mph wind with some gusting, wind quartering hard across the  range.
The first round eliminated half the shooters and 4 or 5 rounds later and there were 2. Myself and another shooter. Long story shortened we went 12 more rounds till someone missed. Both rifles are good examples of what would have been carried in the 1770s. I remember his rifle was .54 cal built by Brad Emig with sights typical of todays builds.
My rifle is a .62 cal early Reading style with low original type rear and low barley corn front. Sighted to hit point of aim at 75 yards. No short starter was used  and no wiping between shots.
Shooting a 120 grain charge my hold was head height and a man width into the wind to hit center mass.
 I think that's about as close as were going to get without shooting an original long gun. Just like today not all that carried a rifle gun were good shots. But give a few of us a good rest and a calm day and we could knock a few Red Coats off their horses at 3 or 4 hundred paces.

[Artificer]

D. Bowman,

Thanks for chiming in. 

Even with all the years I spent around Snipers and the best NM shooters in the country (Armed Forces personnel and Civilians), I am MIGHTILY impressed you and another shooter ran over 10 hits each on that target from the Offhand position at 200 yards.
That is some truly excellent shooting by any standard.  Congratulations.

Do you happen to know how wide and how tall the torso area of that silhouette was? 

Do you happen to know where the shooter with the .54 cal. rifle was holding? 

Great info on your charge and where you held to hit the target.  I’ll bet your shoulder “let you know about it” after shooting 12 shots with a 120 grain charge and a .62 cal. ball.  Grin. 

Since your rifle is the same caliber as a Baker Rifle, I am also wondering what your barrel length and twist rate is in that rifle? 

Gus

[D. Bowman]

I don't have measurements of the target but i have helped move it a few times. It is about the size of an average mans upper body.
My rifle has a 44inch barrel 1-66 twist. The 2 inch wide early style butt plate helps with the recoil. I think i was more worn out from the intense heckling from the bystanders. Most who i call dear friends. but i wouldn't have it any other way.

[Dphariss]

Dan,

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

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

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

The 200 yards thing is supposition like almost everything else posted here has been since apparently nobody has bothered to shoot their rifles past 50 or 100 yards.
I have given THREE reference books to read. ALL with period descriptions. I have referenced Dillon who's book has targets shot with original unaltered FL rifles PLUS old targets found with original rifles. So I suggest people do some reading and relieve me of doing research that nobody appartently wants to hear anyway. Oh I have a friend with an original FL match rifle, unaltered as near as we can tell. It shoots well enough to win but fear of touch hole erosion limits its use. To me this whole discussion has been based on supposition by people, who at least for the most part have not done the research but think its a cool topic and have to jump it and post.
Have you EVER shot at a mansized silhouette at 200 yards with a round ball rifle? Or a ring target or  even a rock on a hillside? Ever shoot game at 150? Ever shoot a flintlock at 300? I have done ALL these things and shot my match rifle at 300+ a couple of months ago just for the heck of it. At 300 meters a 50 caliber RB will know a pig silhouette of its stand btw. Since some in the past have made the ridiculous statement (again based entirely on supposition) that a 50 caliber rb would not produce a fatal wound at this distance.
But of course it much easier to rattle on about stuff with a keyboard than to go out and shoot and experiment or read the documentation from the past.
Modern military qualification, which is almost totally irrelevant.
In 1970 for example qualifying in basic there was no way to hold on the silhouette's head since the sights on the M16E1 were not easily adjustable. Other than cranking the front sight up or down with a bullet point they were essentially fixed.
While I agree with a Kentucky hold on the head  at longer ranges is a good idea and provides a good aiming point we have no idea what they really did and trying to get inside someones head from 1775 is impossible.  Nor is it practical in real life for some draftee who will qualify in basic and may never be on a rifle range again in his military career.
Also the front sight on an 1903  Springfield is far narrower (50% or so) than on the later service rifles, but of course they were never fired for qualification on silhouette targets SFAIK so having the front sight similar in width of a silhouette's head was not a factor.
 BTW he rifleman at Breed's Hill only fired for 10-12 minutes not 15. My mistake.

I suggest that those interested read chapter 5 of "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse. "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution" by Huddleston is out of print.
Dan

[Dphariss]

Once over 58 caliber and certainly by 62 the performance at longer ranges is better. My Manton style rifle using a .662 ball more effective at ranges over 150 than a 50-54 is. Its easier to hit stuff and seems more consistent.

However, finding original American rifles in calibers over 52-54 is problematical. Hanger tells us that he never saw a rifle over 36 to the pound. We know this is not 100% true but we also know that there are a number of rifles in England or have returned from England that are bonifide Rev-War rifles that have been in collections and not recut that are 50 caliber and under. There are a lot of early rifles HERE that served well into the percussion era and are now smooth having been bored smooth at sometime in their perhaps 100 year plus service life.
THEN we have complaints from the 1750s that the rifle is far more economical than the trade gun, which was generally 58-62. If the rifle is 58-62 then this would not be significant enough to rouse complaints about the rifle hurting trade.
But shooters today look at old rifles and think they are the bore size now they were when new and this is virtually never the case unless the rifle fell from use before the bore was enlarged through "freshing". Such as being taken to England as a war trophy. Even surviving rifles here in America are generally 50 caliber or under of they are still rifled. And surviving smooth rifles are often still rifle caliber. Not fowling piece bore size.
This is why I shot at the "bad guy" silhouette at 285 with a 50 rather than my 54. I considered it to be more "typical".
The lack of GOOD data in bore sizes over a large number of rifles and even rifling twists where possible is one of my pet peeves. There needs to be a study of surviving rifle BORES to determine, with a bore scope, if the rifle really is a smooth rifle or if it has some surviving rifling down the bore 10-12".

Dan

[Smoketown]

Gentlemen,

So far, there have been 12 pages of BS shot and not one shot at paper.

Please don’t take offence but, not every citizen soldier was an ‘expert marksman’ nor were all arms capable of the accuracy alluded to in many of the period writings otherwise, there wouldn’t have been the need to form the National Rifle Association 100 years later …

Gunny Hathcock’s exploits are legendary but, how many misses did he have?
As I recall reading, didn’t “White Feather” have to ‘walk-in’ the famous shot he took with Ma Duce?

How do you think he would have done with a rack grade rifle and issue ammunition?
Obviously, better than the average Gyrene or he wouldn’t have been chosen for the rifle team.

Instead of speculating, gather information.
The first item is to get on paper at the desired distance with the best rifle(s) with the best load(s) with the best shooter(s) using a scopes, aperture or open sights.
Get an average of what those combinations are capable of.

THEN, you can start to ‘de-tune’ the combination(s) to suit whatever fanciful approximation of ‘period correctness’ your heart desires.

Hallelujah!

Here we have actual shooters with photos and/or actual witnesses (who are still living).

From 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
(Has anyone ever doubted the abilities of our Northern Brothers?)

From D Bowman -
There were about 15 regular shooters.
The first round eliminated half the shooters and 4 or 5 rounds later and there were 2.
Long story shortened we went 12 more rounds till someone missed.
(Sounds like some pretty fair round ball shooters to me …)


It’s also been averaging 70 degrees in Phoenix Arizona
San Gabriel, California – 70 to 72 this weekend.
San Diego / Santa Margarita / Pendleton - 68 to 75

 – Any shooters that far West willing to give it a go?

Oh my!!

Thank you Candle Snuffer for the ‘revival’ - http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=28771.0

Someday, I’ll learn to type more quickly … Yeah … Right

Cheers,
Smoketown

[Candle Snuffer]

I agree, it's time to shoot and report our findings.  With our 200 yard round ball match back, we have a platform to do some testing.  I would encourage anyone with an interest in this topic to give the 200 yards a try.  I plan on doing it again, and hopefully many times over.

I can appreciate Artificer's (Gus) interest in wanting to research and find answers to his questions.  I applaud his efforts in doing so, and in doing so he has opened up (with help from many of us) new questions, possibilities, of what was or may have been.  Granted, we will never be able to reproduce what the Riflemen of the ARW actually did, but we may be able to draw a bit more understanding of these Riflemen through actual range time.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Artificer]

Dan,

We have been over what is written in “Colonial Riflemen of the American Revolution” by Joe Huddleston.  You and I have disagreed on what the author tried so hard to get across to modern students in earlier threads and that’s why discussions are indeed valid.  For those who don’t have a copy of this book, I typed out the following paragraph from page 12 in the Introduction section that is particularly germane to some of the discussions and examples in this thread.  I quote:

“The apparent sentimentality of some writers in connection with the rifle leaves their reliability open to question.  This is particularly true of some historians writing during the 1800’s.  Many writers of the second quarter of the 19th century, in particular, rhapsodized so freely that there is little resemblance between their work and fact.  Therefore every effort has been made to rely only on contemporary accounts or reliable secondary works of relatively recent origin, in order to avoid the bias.  However, in some cases the only works available that cover smaller actions in sufficient detail were of this type and, therefore, have been used.”

As to modern military front sights.  You are correct the M1903 front sight was extremely thin as was issued by Army Ordnance.  However, BOTH the Army and Marine Corps were dissatisfied with that front sight in WWI, but it took the Marine Corps to come up with wider and taller front sights in 1919.  The front sight width was increased to .100” to make it far easier to pick up the sights in battle and low light situations.  M1 Garand and M14 issue front sights were thinner at around .075” and the NM front sight widths for both were .0592” and .0520”.  (Folks may compare these front sight widths to modern front sight widths that many people use on reproduction muzzle loaders that are often around .080”.  However, since the sight radius or distance from the rear of the front sight to the front of the rear sight are not always the same, there is going to be natural differences in how the front sights appear to the shooter.  Longer distance between the sights make the same width front sight appear smaller to the shooter.) 

The front sight of the M16A1 was a PITA to adjust; BUT though I don’t know about the Army, we Marines certainly adjusted them to a high degree when we shot our 200 yard through 500 yard qualification and requalification courses.  I shot an M14 in Boot Camp for qualification in 1971, then an M16A1 for two years, then back to an M14 for a couple years, then the M16A1 and M16A2.  I tied the All Time High Requalification Score of 249 out of a possible 250 at Quantico in 1988 with an M16A2 in literally perfect shooting conditions. 

I truly don’t understand resistance against attempts to try to figure out HOW American Riflemen used their rifles in our time period.  I concur that a .62 cal. rifle would have been very uncommon to downright rare, but even though the bore size is larger than what would have been common, the results are interesting for what may be the ultimate high end of possible long range accuracy in our time period.  IOW, if it demonstrates what was the best accuracy possible during our period, then it gives us the “high end” to use in comparison to other rifles of the period.  So if a shot could not reliably be made with a .62 cal. rifle at long range, then it clearly demonstrates it was hardly possible with a .45 to .52 caliber rifle.

A LOT has been learned in recent decades through experimental archeology done at such places as Colonial Williamsburg and Plimouth Plantation.  The Volumes of the Journal of Historical Arms Making Technology are a particularly excellent and germane in our area of interest.  Though of course they used period sources and original or replica tools, it took actual modern use of them to better understand how things were done.  Though we have to be careful we understand and note the differences between then and now (as I have tried to point out so much on cloth thickness, ball sizes available, powders, lack of short starters, etc.) we can learn much from amateur experimental archeology when we bear in mind these and other things.  Of course there is no way to “get in the heads of 18th century people 100 percent, but we can come closer than what may be imagined. 

I also don’t understand your rather casual dismissal of the quality of powder available to the American Rifleman in 1776 compared to today.  The quality of powder is extremely important to the accuracy of the Longrifle and anyone who has tried different powders over the years in their rifles can attest to that.  Now while the best powder available to American Riflemen from Britain at first and then later from France directly or indirectly through the Dutch, local powder manufacture was often of far less quality.  Here is a link to demonstrate:

http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/09/the-gunpowder-shortage/

The British Army used rifles in the Seven Years war and the ARW.  It seems THEY learned MORE about using rifles for the military than we did, from those conflicts.  They developed the Baker rifle that was a much better military Flintlock Round Ball Rifle than our M 1803 rifle and arguably (if not certainly) our M1814 and M1817 rifles. 

Gus

[Artificer]

Smoketown,

I encourage actual shooting to test what may or may not have been possible in 1776, which is the topic of this thread.

However, to truly learn more about what was possible in 1776, then one must try to duplicate ALL the parameters of what was actually used in the period, to the best of our ability or we learn little or nothing.  This is not an attempt to “  ‘de-tune’ the combination(s) to suit whatever fanciful approximation of ‘period correctness’ your heart desires.”  Actually and in reality, how we shoot flintlock rifles today is often a fanciful approximation of how they did it in 1776, when we get down to brass tacks.  That is not an attempt to be critical of anyone who shoots today as I am a strong proponent of all types of shooting and especially muzzle loading shooting, but it is fact nonetheless.  

Using the guidelines of Experimental Archeology much better teach us about what was possible and even probable in 1776.  

Gus

[Artificer]

CS,

One thing that “hit me” today was the use of the white center in the black bullseye on your 200 yard targets that you, Daryl and Taylor used in approximation of the paper slips mentioned in original accounts they shot at.

I first found out how valuable it was to use a white center in a black bullseye in the 70’s from shooting at Clark Brothers’ Range near Warrenton, VA, though it didn’t really register at the time. 

It wasn’t until the 80’s when I went back there to fix and sight in my Model 1100 for deer hunting, that it really dawned on me how valuable it was.  I had to shoot and go into the gun shop to buy more parts because my brother had disassembled it while I was transferred and he had not put all the parts back in and messed up other parts.  That caused me to keep buying more of their targets that had a 1” white circle in the black bullseye.  So after I got my gun fixed and sighted in, I went back and bought even more of those targets to use at other times.

I am not an Eye Doctor, but the difference in the white center and the black bullseye background really aids the eyes in distinguishing the center of the target vs a completely black bullseye as it gives a much finer aiming point. 

From then on for the rifles I built and shot at 100 yards to test them for accuracy, I bought targets with white centers in the black bullseye or put white “shot stickies” in the center of an all black bullseye for better shooting.

It never dawned on me until this thread that  I was recreating what they did in the 18th century by putting a slip of what had to have been lighter colored paper on a background that was darker and thus made accurate shooting easier.

Gus

[Artificer]

I don't have measurements of the target but i have helped move it a few times. It is about the size of an average mans upper body.
My rifle has a 44inch barrel 1-66 twist. The 2 inch wide early style butt plate helps with the recoil. I think i was more worn out from the intense heckling from the bystanders. Most who i call dear friends. but i wouldn't have it any other way.

Thanks for the added information.  Again, truly impressive shooting!
Gus

[Candle Snuffer]

One thing that “hit me” today was the use of the white center in the black bullseye on your 200 yard targets that you, Daryl and Taylor used in approximation of the paper slips mentioned in original accounts they shot at.

If I Remember right, Daryl suggested that, and it does make a difference.  The target resembles a "Creedmoor" target of sorts, and of course it's not to scale.  I might just work in a similar type targets for the 50 & 100 yard shooting in our 200 Yard Round Ball Match.  Good project for today.

[DICKH]

        In looking for information on a 4th great grand father James Richards I found a web site where I was
able to read his pension application. In it he said he enlisted in 1775 for one year from Lancaster county
in Capt. Matthew Smith's Company , Thompson's Rifle Battalion/1st Pennsylvania Regiment. I found this
thread about rifle accuracy in the Revolution very interesting. Now I am ready to see some 200 yard targets

  Richard Henderson
     

[Dphariss]

Gus

You have FAR more information/knowledge on military arms than I.  But lots of 03's have narrow from sights. Got one two steps away.

So far as the powder used. I did not casually dismiss it but we really have no way to test this and we really don't know what Morgan's Riflemen were using at Saratoga for example, was it from France or England? Rifles required finer powder than muskets. Usually described as rifle powder (or best rifle powder) as a preference and "FF" (this from late 1750s IIRC). The powder we use today is generally wheel mill powder and these were not in widespread use anywhere SFAIK at the time of the revolution. But rifle powder was still likely milled longer than "Musket" since it was near the low end for this. Most powder was ground in a stamp mill. The American made powder of the time was not even granulated as we think of it today. Probably just pressed through screens as it was in Europe well into 18th c.
I suspect that this is the reason wiping is mentioned so often. But if the powder were too soft it would break down in transport of form being carried. Really I would have dig out a lot of stuff that has been sent to me over the years to get a better handle on this.
But I do not think that in a FL this is going to be a major accuracy factor once sorted out if its really "rifle" powder. I would think the size of the vent would be a problem too. I have often wondered about the various factors but I have only seen one original FL rifle with an unused/unaltered vent. It was a Connestoga Rifle Works (Leman) dated 1840 and the vent looked to be about 3/32 or maybe 7/64 as I recall, certainly not 1/8". Been a long time since I looked at it. It was a western trade rifle I am sure and was  poor quality.

But then we have these troublesome letters and journal entries. Why would a guy lie in a letter to his wife or to himself is a journal? What would Hanger want to lie for. Though I admit he did write some strange things in the 19th c.
I also pointed out that many of the newspaper stories, here and in England, were obviously somewhat "enhanced", its obvious.
We know that all riflemen and rifles were not created equal. But apparently 150 yards was doable in the 1750s in America. Its way easy today.
As I have pointed out there are also targets from the 1830s. Sure the powder is better, but the barrels are virtually the same. Same technology, same material, and the rifle may well have dated to the 18th c being a FL.
If the rifle will shoot 2" at 60 yards it will be !@*%&@ dangerous to a man at 200. 2" is not all that great if the wind is steady or non existent.
As we read we find "2 ounce" rifles, wall rifles, able to strike a sheet of writing paper at 500 yards. This would be a 8 bore, the target? It might plus or minus 16" x 24" as a "sheet of writing paper". I would have to look this up but this is ball park since this was about the size that paper was made and apparently sold in. But since nobody gave the actual dimensions?  Still if the powder would shoot this well at 500 from a wall rifle then it might very well shoot well enough at 200 or 300 from a smaller rifle to hit a man one in three shots. This was not a newspaper article either. So the powder thing may not be much of a factor.

More on powder. But being porous and soft is not nearly the problem in a RB rifle that it is in a BPCR shooting 3 caliber or longer bullets at 1000 yards.
Hmm. I think I have a pound of that crappy powder being made in the C&H blasting powder plant in Scotland in the late 60s into the 1970s. Maybe I could dig that up. Those with a first edition Lyman Blackpowder Handbook will see its a little more than 1/2 as powerful as GOI of the time and this was far from a true sporting powder as made in 1890.
 For years, probably decades perhaps many decades, the American made powder was really nothing more than military fuse and booster powder sieved to the proper size and put in a can labeled "Sporting Powder". I once wrote an article that stated this and a certain person had his feathers significantly ruffled because it seems they had a lawsuit in progress over bad grenade fuses.
I remember that while in a far off land when grenades were recalled.  The radio crackled to life one morning sometime in late 1970 IIRC and we were told not to use the baseball grenade since some of them would go off when the spoon came off, bad fuzes. A friend told me "I threw two of them last night". Don't remember the "M" number. But it was some years before I wrote the article but it could have been linked, or the powder maker goofed again.
Never saw another one that I recall used the m26 afterwards, before it was a mix of both.

Some of the blackpowder we used to get before Swiss was as much as 15-20% fines from bacteria eating the sulfur in the powder while it was in the can. Loose lids were very common at this time and this aggravated the bug problem. Every case of powder generally resulted in load development starting over again and good lots were double buys. Then there was the graphite coating which was not an issue in fuses and boosters but not so good for propellant powders. But most shooters today think its normal and some even think Swiss is graphite coated.
But since most of the company's real income was military the shooters were basically told the shut up and be glad they had the stuff. No competition in the market at the time. So not all the powder shot in the 20th c was all that great compared to the better powders of the late 19th c. How it compares to 18c powder? If we can come up with some we could compare it.
But nobody has any and I am not interested in making any.
Me? I never shot any good BP until Swiss was imported.
We still have the reports from the past.....
So would the rifleman shoot at the enemy from 200 yards? My question would be "why would they NOT"? if they were skilled and knew enough about loading their rifle. Wind is low? Why not probably have a better than 50-50 chance. A couple of years ago a rather skilled friend of mine killed an Antelope at over 200 with a 54.

So if someone wants to experiment drill a 3/32" vent in a barrel, or even have one cut on a wooden rifling guide, maybe even from iron. Put the thing in a machine rest and shoot it. Or shoot the rifle they have. Its not going to be solved here with a keyboard.
The barrel we rifled from a Rice blank at our Gunmakers Fair looked GREAT. Thanks to Dave Rase for bringing the machine and letting us finish cutting the barrel.

Someone mentioned Carlos Hathcock. According to Hand, his CO, the rifle he used most in VN was only a 2 minute of angle rifle. But it held its zero, the others would not, for this reason it was the more accurate in the field. This from an interview on the boob tube IIRC. Today it would not be considered worth using.

Way past bed time in Montana.

Dan

[Artificer]

Prior to the ARW, riflemen probably only had one choice of FFg powder when they went to purchase it, IOW whatever the store keeper or trader had in stock.  What we don’t know is how much powder the “average” rifleman would have purchased.  No doubt they had to try each “new batch” of powder to see what if any change they had to make in the powder charge to get the most accurate load IF they were shooting much beyond 100 yards.  Longhunters would no doubt have purchased larger quantities at one time as they would be gone for a full season before coming back to be able to buy more powder.  They too would have tested each new batch of powder, but because they bought larger quantities, their powder charge would have been more certain over longer periods of time because they were using the same powder.

Because there was only one American Powder Mill in the 13 colonies prior to the ARW, and that one in Pennsylvania, most of the powder imported here came from England, though some French powder MAY have been available at times.  No doubt that “fine” rifle powder of FFg granulation was imported and available to American Riflemen prior to the ARW and most likely made in the PA Powder Mill.   However, after the beginning of the war, it was military grade powder I.E., 1Fg powder for muskets and artillery grade powder that were the most vital powder granulations to procure.  What we don’t know is if ANY FFg rifle powder was available for the Riflemen in “regular inventory” from the Quartermasters.  Now, it is possible to downright probable the Rifleman ground the 1Fg Musket powder finer by using mortars and pestles.  However, that is not going to be as accurate as powder that was “screened” to get the correct granulation size.  Also, because the powder sources WERE so iffy to the Army for the first few years of the war, the powder came from different sources and all these things meant it would have been difficult to get the best accuracy out of the rifle time after time even in one campaign or year, let alone for a number of years.  Bottom line on powder during the war is until France really started sending powder to the American Army in quantity, the quantity and quality of powder would have been a constant problem for Rifle Accuracy in the ARW.

I don’t believe Colonel Hanger was lying about what he personally saw and that 400 yard shot under perfect conditions was a MISS.  The information he related about what other Riflemen could do about only the BEST marksmen being able to hit the head of an enemy soldier at 200 yards reliably, was not something he personally witnessed but rather what had been reported to him.  No doubt that is WHY he mentioned it was reported to him as he never witnessed it.  While I MAY believe there were some truly exceptional American Riflemen who could have hit an enemy’s head at 200 yards, the chances of them doing so under the psychological and emotional stress of combat is something all together different.

How much can we take from target shooting today with round ball flintlock target rifle when we are NOT rushed to shoot and have nothing of the psychological and emotional stress of combat?  We can not duplicate that.  So ALL we can get from target shooting today is what our rifles with consistent/best powder, patch and ball sizes our rifles prefer – is what our rifles are CAPABLE of shooting on a low stress or no stress rifle range.  This is no doubt in part, or perhaps in great measure, why American Riflemen were generally ordered not to fire beyond 150 yards because that was the maximum range they could reliably hit a British Soldier and that probably was a shot in the torso. 

Two more things we have not touched on for combat rifle accuracy is how much/little sleep the Riflemen got in the ARW AND how well or not they were fed.  One just doesn’t get as much sleep in a combat zone as one does in civilian life AND the sleep they often get is not restful sleep.  Not good for accurate shooting.  Not enough food and/or not enough of the kind of food to best balance the diet also will make shooting in a combat zone more difficult.  It was only in RARE times the American Armies were well fed during the ARW.  Again, not good for accurate shooting.  These are also not things we that will show up in TARGET shooting and more reasons why American Riflemen were ordered not to shoot beyond 150 yards. 

A large part of the reason Carlos Hathcock did so well in combat shooting was he had fired his rifle with a clean/dry bore many, many times at many ranges and in many conditions and wrote all that information down to refer to later.  Bottom line, he KNEW where his rifle would shoot the FIRST shot over all sorts of ranges and conditions.  He recorded that information with an almost religious zealotry.  I know because that’s how he taught me when I was a young Sergeant to zero in my rifle.  Another thing he knew when to get sleep.  In 1975 during the Ohio State Championships, held at Camp Perry Ohio and was always used by The Big Service Teams as practice for the National Championships later on that year, he was assigned in the same “hooch” as we Armorers.  Instead of going out on liberty, he hit the rack (went to bed) at 8:00 PM to get plenty of sleep prior to practice and the matches.  I was surprised at how little the shooters went out and “partied” as I had heard PLENTY of stories of them doing that in earlier years.  However, the “ 10 X” target had just come into use and you could not be “sloppy” and shoot a “possible score” on it like they used to be able to do on the 5V targets. 

Well, that’s enough for tonight.
Gus

[Rkymtn57]

When I started this thread , I had no doubts that some riflemen were capable.
But another question I though of , which hasn't been addressed is the condition of their rifles ?
I was hoping that someone would volunteer to leave their prized tack driver
 outside for 365 days a year in high humidity , mud , rain , snow and jarring 100+ mile marches.
Sure you can wipe it down once a day , swab the barrel with whatever materials were then available
and even cover the lock with a calfs knee or something .
If you think it got pampered every evening after an all day forced march your kidding yourself.
Any takers ?     D

[Candle Snuffer]

Well, except for the rifling, the flintlock rifle is no different then the flintlock musket, and I'm pretty sure the Continental Army spent most their time outdoors and they were still able to bring their muskets to battery against the enemy.  A well built firearm of the day probably was pampered more than one might think.  I expect the Riflemen pampered theirs just a bit more without being told to do so, like the Continental Army probably was, constantly.

Firearms were viewed much different then, than today.  It was everything to you that meant all aspects of survival and I expect there was quite a few pampered flintlocks by those who made their living off the land.  Could be a completely different story with the city dwellers and firearms back then?    

[smylee grouch]

We live in what some call a disposable society, if it breakes there are those who would just buy another. Quite different from our forfathers or even our great grandparents who for the most part took better care of their belongings.

[Elnathan]

" What would Hanger want to lie for. Though I admit he did write some strange things in the 19th c."

He might not exactly lie, but I have been wondering lately if he might be exaggerating his expertise a bit. He was not a modest man, after all - he doesn't seem to have been reluctant to brag about his marksmanship and he was evidently fond of dropping names, judging by his writings. He also doesn't seem to have been reluctant to give an opinion on a wide variety of things that he seems unlikely to have known much about. It seems possible that his claim to examined "hundreds and hundreds" of rifles might be a bit of a fib - seen hundreds of rifles, quite possibly. Carefully examined hundreds and hundreds? Maybe not.

He may have been telling the unvarnished truth, of course, but I think that it would be wise not to just assume so.

One rifle he did examine is RCA 121, since he brought it back from SC himself before giving it to Prince George. Interestingly enough, while the caliber matches Hanger's description, the barrel is a little under five inches longer than the 3 feet 3 inches that Hanger gives as typical - I have been wondering if maybe he was describing a particular rifle, but if so it wasn't this one.

BTW, did anyone else notice that Hanger says that American riflemen used only a thimbleful of powder for hunting, but upped the load considerably for warfare?

[Artificer]

Chapter XIII (13) of  “Cuthbertson's System for the Complete Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battalion of Infantry” goes into GREAT detail on how British Soldiers were expected to keep their muskets not only clean,  but highly polished at all times.  Though they may not have been that perfect on campaign, I’m sure they were required to keep their muskets in really good condition at all times.  Even if they only did such a complete job in Garrison, it would have warmed the heart of the strictest modern day Marine Drill Instructor.  Grin. 

http://books.google.com/books?id=1SxEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The American Army having their roots in the British Army and some Officers actually having served there, would have tried to emulate that.  I don’t think they would have been as successful as the British, as American supplies were no where near as certain.  Still, I’m sure they did the best they could.

There is written evidence that Longhunters deliberately rubbed certain plants on the brass parts of the rifles so the brass would tarnish and thus not shine and give away their position to game or hostile NA’s.  Not sure and I don’t think that was a common practice outside hunters, though. 
 
Anyone who has ever slept on the Primitive Range at Friendship, In, KNOWS that your rifle will rust like all get out overnight if you don’t wipe it down every day and that is even when the day was sunny with no rain or snow.  And that’s a rifle that has a browned or blued barrel and lock.  For those of us who have reenacted with “bright” barrels and locks on our muskets; you HAVE to wipe them down every day or they will be a rust bucket by the morning and that’s true even when you haven’t fired the flinter that day.  When we used to do a mock battle in front of the National Archives in Washington, DC on July 4th, it was often so hot that the flesh of our fingers was BURNT onto the barrels of our “King’s Arms” or Brown Bess Replica’s.  MAN is that difficult to get off a musket barrel.  Grin. 

We tend to forget just how much a flintlock rifle or smoothbore cost in our period.  Depending on how much a man made, it was anywhere from three months to close to a year’s wages, especially for a rifle.  That alone would cause them to take good care of it and as others noted. When a firearm means not only your livelihood, but your LIFE in many instances, those who survived were the ones who took good care of their firearms.

Gus

[Artificer]

Elnathan,

Good points on Hanger.  Since he campaigned in the South, it was possible he saw hundreds of rifles in Tory as well as Patriot hands, since the rifle was much more common from Pennsylvania down through the Carolina’s and even Georgia.  Had he campaigned primarily in New England, that would not have been the case. 

As to your question, “BTW, did anyone else notice that Hanger says that American riflemen used only a thimbleful of powder for hunting, but upped the load considerably for warfare?”

Yes, I did notice that, but it is not unexpected.  As I'm sure you know, today many of us have two loads we use in our rifles.  One is an “accuracy load” and one is a “hunting load” for deer sized or large game.  My accuracy load in a .45 cal. straight sided (not swamped) flint rifle is 42 ½ grains while my hunting load is 80 grains.  That rifle is extremely picky about that ½ grain and if one goes ½ grain more of less, accuracy drops off noticeably.  This would be an appropriate load for anything from squirrels to rabbits, possums, raccoons, etc.  If one looks at the original accounts during the period, it seems they used 90 grains or more in rifles up to I think it was 90 to 110 grains for the Baker Rifle (though of course that was a 62. caliber rifle)?   Now MAYBE some of that is the fact their powder was not quite as uniform/potent as ours is today?  But, it still shows they realized that there was a “small game” or “target load” and a heavier load used for hunting deer, bear, boar, wolves, cougars, or men. 

In the 1810 original account you posted earlier in the thread, pouring powder over a ball might have been an “accuracy” or “small game” load. 

Also, thimbles that Hanger would have known about were usually larger than thimbles we think of today used by women.  In Hanger’s world, tailors were men and that meant their thimbles for fingers and thumbs were larger.  So a thimble of powder to Hanger would have been more than what we might think about today. 

Gus

[omark]

But remember, people were smaller then, than now, so the difference may not be as big as one  would think.  Mark

[Elnathan]

Hanger actually specifies a woman's thimble, Artificer. I am pretty sure that you are right, though, that 18th century thimbles were larger than modern ones. Either that or Hanger was speaking loosely. I don't think a modern one would hold more than 15 or twenty grains, and I doubt that American riflemen habitually loaded twenty grains of powder behind a .50 caliber ball!  


Leaving aside the question of exactly how much powder went into a woman's thimble, I have long held a theory that the American longrifle was never intended as a long range weapon but was designed for very precise shot placement at moderate ranges (a hundred yards or less), and that as a normal thing folks didn't shoot much over that range. Hanger's suggestion that under normal circumstances they used a fairly small charge lends weight to that theory. Ergo, while the really long shots under discussion capture our attention (and imagination) today, it seems likely that such shots were out of the riflemen's normal routine and they possibly were not as proficient at estimating range, etc., at longer ranges as we might assume.

Not exactly an earth-shattering theory, and something that has been discussed on this thread already, I believe.

OTOH, now I am curious to know how much powder an 18th century woman's thimble would hold...

[Candle Snuffer]

I have long held a theory that the American longrifle was never intended as a long range weapon but was designed for very precise shot placement at moderate ranges (a hundred yards or less), and that as a normal thing folks didn't shoot much over that range.

I would agree with this simply because of the "over the log" shooting match which we know to have been (at least the one recorded and attended by Davy Crockett in 1831) - 40 yards offhand, or 60 yards with a rest (over the log).  This does tend to lend support to the above quote.

see;
http://www.muzzleblasts.com/archives/vol3no2/articles/mbo32-1.shtml

[Artificer]

Elnathan,

Good info on the thimble that Hanger mentioned was a woman’s thimble.  Sorry I missed that.  Not sure how much powder a woman’s thumb thimble would have held in the period and I agree Hanger was most likely talking loosely.  My Grandmother’s thumb thimble probably would have held 25 grains of blackpowder, but she was a TINY woman at only about 4’ 10 ½” even though I remember her “facing down” some unruly and MUCH larger men by her will alone.  Grin.  My Grandmother would have been tiny in the 18th century, though. 

For others:  It came as a surprise to me that Americans in the 18th century were ALMOST as tall as we are today, the first time I researched it.  American Males on average were only an inch or at most an inch and a half shorter than today and American Females were only about an inch shorter than today.  This because the average American in the time period ate far, FAR better than Europeans.  In the 19th century, the average size of males and females SHRUNK due to all the poor immigrants from Europe who came over after the potato famine and other famines in especially Eastern Europe.  Since so many of those poor recent immigrants signed up for the Civil War, the average American soldier in the Civil War was much shorter/smaller  than in the ARW.   So the average American Soldier during the 18th century would not have been very noticeably smaller than today, though the British Soldier coming from poor areas was smaller on average then.

That’s also why 18th century British Soldiers were on average 2 to 2 ½ shorter than American Soldiers with the exception of British Soldiers assigned to the single Grenadier Company in each Regiment.  Those soldiers tended to be from 5’10” to 6 feet tall and rarely were sometimes taller than that.  Grenadiers were “Heavy Infantry/Shock Troops” and when they were sent in, they were VERY imposing and things got real nasty. 

Gus