1803 Harper's Ferry

[eddillon]

This has always been a puzzler to me.  Does anyone know if the military manuals of the day mentioned how to properly carry the 1803 rifle while marching, advancing, etc?  There is no provision for a sling or strap for shoulder carry.  I think a trooper would tire of not having a free hand, or two, in this situation.

[JV Puleo]

An interesting point. I collected early manuals (pre-CW) for years and have a dozen or so. None make reference to the 1803 rifle. I've never seen exactly 1 militia rifle with sling swivels and most militia muskets don't have them. They would have been issued to flank companies intended as skirmishers, hence the lack of a bayonet as well.

[Longknife]

Ed, I believe I read in "1812  Hand Book for Riflemen" by William Duane that the HF rifles were not equipped with a sling because the Riflemen were expected to carry their rifle in their hands to be ready at any moment. I can not locate my copy but you can get a complete down load of this book here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&output=acs_help&id=3hpAAAAAYAAJ

[PPatch]

Ed, I believe I read in "1812  Hand Book for Riflemen" by William Duane that the HF rifles were not equipped with a sling because the Riflemen were expected to carry their rifle in their hands to be ready at any moment. I can not locate my copy but you can get a complete down load of this book here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&output=acs_help&id=3hpAAAAAYAAJ

Makes sense, I knew of a couple of platoon leaders who had their troops remove the sling on their rifles for the same reason. Reminds them to always be on the alert with the weapon at the ready.

dave

[Hungry Horse]

 The Harper's Ferry might just be the most poorly thought out rifle the military ever put into service. No sling swivels, no bayonet lug, and half stocked. It's like whoever designed it had no concept of what a military rifle needed to be successful.

  Hungry Horse

[JV Puleo]

I think it actually conforms closely to the perceived use of a military rifle at the time it was adopted. It didn't need sling swivels or a bayonet — or a full stock for that matter to function as it was intended. None of the earlier military rifles had bayonets and none of those carried by militia organizations did either. Bayonets weren't considered worthwhile for riflemen until quite a bit later. Even the 1817 rifle didn't have one originally, though many were altered to accept them. This didn't come until much later... my 1817 was converted and fitted with a bayonet at Watertown in the early 1850s.

Riflemen were skirmishers... as were British riflemen. The Baker rifles did carry a bayonet but it was really a short sword and its use as a bayonet a function of the military's fascination with "multiple purpose" items which nearly always don't do any of the things they were intended for very well.

[grabenkater]

I made note to study Civil War images of soldiers with their arms. I found that many soldiers did not have slings either in studio photos or even in the field. Made me wonder if they removed them or simply did not receive them with their weapons.

[eddillon]

The Harper's Ferry might just be the most poorly thought out rifle the military ever put into service. No sling swivels, no bayonet lug, and half stocked. It's like whoever designed it had no concept of what a military rifle needed to be successful.

  Hungry Horse

Poorly thought out but beautifully executed.  It was the  design basis for many smiths and builders to follow.  IMHO it is one of the neatest designs of all rifles.

[Longknife]

The Harper's Ferry might just be the most poorly thought out rifle the military ever put into service. No sling swivels, no bayonet lug, and half stocked. It's like whoever designed it had no concept of what a military rifle needed to be successful.

  Hungry Horse

On the contrary, HH. The HP rifles were expertly designed and built to do exactly what they were supposed to do,,,light to carry, quick to handle and Shoot center at 200 yds. plus...Something a musket could NOT do. Muskets were designed for ease of loading and shoulder to shoulder volley firing. They were NOT accurate. You were not even supposed to aim your musket, just point it and wait for the order to fire. This kind of warfare would ultimately end up with a bayonet charge and hand to hand combat. This is classic 'European" type warfare, not suited on the American frontier. The US Government realized the value of Riflemen in frontier fighting  during the American Revolution. After General St. Claire and his army (armed with muskets) were soundly defeated by the Indians in Nov. of 1791 the US decided to raise an army of Riflemen and ordered  Contract rifles to be built. In 1792 there were 1,476 delivered and in 1794 there were another 2,000 delivered. They were ordered especially for frontier fighting. They greatly resembled the common " Kentucky" rifle of the day with full stocks, long 42 inch barrels and shiny brass hardware.  But were they the ultimate in "frontier"  fighting equipment? I think NOT!!!! In 1803 these rifles had seen much use and were in very poor condition and a replacement was designed. The new replacement was the 1803 Harpers Ferry rifle. It was half stocked,( less prone to breakage?) shorter barreled (33inches) and lighter. The tapered oct. to round barrel shaved a lot of weight off too.  It also employed a STEEL ram rod (something unheard of on rifled gun in 1803...It was a true a work of ART!!!!! But above all it was light to carry, quick to handle, and ACCURATE out past 200 yards, and just the thing for frontier warfare. Over 20,000 of them were built between 1803 and 1819.  If they were not well suited for their purpose why build so many?.....Ed  

[eddillon]

Thank you Longknife!

[Dphariss]

Ed, I believe I read in "1812  Hand Book for Riflemen" by William Duane that the HF rifles were not equipped with a sling because the Riflemen were expected to carry their rifle in their hands to be ready at any moment. I can not locate my copy but you can get a complete down load of this book here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&output=acs_help&id=3hpAAAAAYAAJ

Makes sense, I knew of a couple of platoon leaders who had their troops remove the sling on their rifles for the same reason. Reminds them to always be on the alert with the weapon at the ready.

dave

The sling I was issued was noisy and in the way on patrol. So it went in my pocket. And yes from what I understand riflemen were expected to carry their rifles at the ready and thus the 1803 has no sling.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Long knife is correct in his assessment and I would be surprised if it were not more accurate than the later rifles with barrel bands

Dan

[The Rambling Historian]

Not so Long Knife: muskets were meant to be aimed. This myth comes from the fact that the English did not use the phrase "take aim," but the term "present" implied aim rather than simply leveling your musket in the general direction of your foe.

“..raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the Head, the right Cheek to be close to the Butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzel…."

"The Regiments are frequently practiced at firing ball at marks. Six rounds pr man at each time is usually allotted for this practice. As our Regiment is quartered on a Wharf which Projects into the harbour, and there is very considerable range without any obstruction, we have fixed figures of men as large as life, made of thin boards, on small stages, which are anchored at a proper distance from the end of the Wharf, at which the men fire. Objects afloat, which move up and down with the tide, are frequently pointed out for them to fire at, and Premiums are sometimes given for the best shots, by which means some of our men have become excellent marksmen."

"I saw a Regiment & the Body of marines, each by itself, firing at marks. A Target being set up before each company, the soldier of the regiment stept out singly, took aim & fired, & the firing was kept up in this manner by the whole regiment till they had all fired ten rounds. The Marines fired by Platoons, by Companies, & sometimes by files, & made some general discharges, taking aim all the while at Targets the same as the Regiment.

    Lookt at five companies on the common firing at Targets. A little dog happened to be on the beach where the balls fell thickest, & continued to run backwards & forwards after the balls, being much diverted with the noise they made, & the dirt flying about; & kept doing so, till they had done firing their 10 rounds apiece without being hurt."

Check this article out for more context for those 18th century quotes.:
http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/

[L. Akers]

The Harper's Ferry might just be the most poorly thought out rifle the military ever put into service. No sling swivels, no bayonet lug, and half stocked. It's like whoever designed it had no concept of what a military rifle needed to be successful.

  Hungry Horse

Poorly thought out but beautifully executed.  It was the  design basis for many smiths and builders to follow.  IMHO it is one of the neatest designs of all rifles.

Jacob Hawken worked at Harpers ferry from 1808 to 1818 and would have been building the 1803 and the 1814 models.  These "poorly thought out rifles" may have been the genesis for Jacob's own rifle design.

[smylee grouch]

Jacob might have but I like to think the half stock Hawken plains rifle has more English influence than 1803 influence.

[Mike Brooks]

I believe the 1803 to be the clunkiest handling, ugliest gun ever produced. Beauty must be in the eye of the beholder.....

[Brent English]

Really interesting discussion.  I was not aware that there were folks that had such a dislike for this gun.  I am NOT a fan of military guns at all, but the 1803 is the only one I'd like to have in my gun rack.  I think it was Russell's association (disputed) with Lewis and Clark that first attracted me to it.  I also thought it would make a great deer and elk rifle. 

[JTR]

One thing you'll find on this forum is lot's of opinions, some well informed, some not so much!
Just chose the ones you like, and disregard the rest!
John