Colonial Myths

[ottawa]

the 2 teeth thing is still in the army regs and state 2 of your own teeth so i guess theire Polly grip was not as good back then 

[Roger Fisher]

Two out of  three. I'm getting there.

Dale H

Yes I've done 1 and 2 several times still workiing on #3

[tiger955]

I have read numerous times that Dan'l Boone used to reload on the run when being chased by indians.  He would fire a shot, dump some powder down the barrel out of his horn, and toss a ball down with no patch. I have tried this method of loading as an experiment, and it would give enough power and accuracy for close range combat. It does foul the bore somethin awful so only good for a shot or two. In those days they often used leather patching so the balls were probably more undersize than what we use, so I say to a 9 second reload, "could be".

[Dphariss]

I have wondered the same thing about losing teeth.  Again they may have spit the ball in their hand and then loaded.  Can't really say as I need both hands to stay on a d--n horse.  Remember an exhibition by a cavalry re-inactment group where one or two cavalry men fell off at the charge.  Bet that was more common than we think in the old days.  Cannot remember the general who said it but the Commanches were called the greatest light cavalry he had ever seen.
As to shooting ramrods, its been done.  Falsemuzzles for target rifles came with a sight block to prevent them from being shot downrange.  Would guess in a tight situation for fastloading a gent might shoot the ramrod off if up close and his life was endangered by whatever. 

DP

Falling off was not all that common. if you fell off you were likely to be out of the gene pool if in actual combat.  Cavalry re-enactment groups are not necessarily good horsemen.
Watch the Indians chasing the Stagecoach in the original movie "Stagecoach" with John Wayne.
Horse running flat out, guy shoots a TD Springfield, cocks it and ejects the case. Gets another blank from his vest pocket loads in in the gun and shoots again. Reins on the horses neck. But he was not "re-enacting" riding a horse he know how. At that time Hollywood had a lot of real  cowboys and such working in westerns. They knew how to stay in their seat horse running or not.

Dan

[northmn]

Slim Pickens was a rodeo competitor and Cary Grant was a real cowboy that came to Hollywood to be a stuntman.  However the army had to train some folks to ride horses to fill out the cavalry.  I do not know for sure,  heresay but it makes sense, that cavalrymen were picked for size and smaller men were recruited.  In the horse and buggy days a lot of people rode buggys not horses and were not as good of horsemen as we think.  It was said that some Union recruits from towns never rode a horse.  As to the elimination from the gene pool, that is also possible.  There are those that can do amazing things on horseback.  The Comanche could shoot from underneath a horses neck.  there are those that can chase cattle and rope them off of horses.  One of my uncles broke a couple of ribs because the cow went one way the cutting horse followed and he went stright.  Long story. 

DP

[Daryl]

Too- many of the US army recruits were immigrants who'd never ridden a horse - they learned quickly - it isn't difficult.

[northmn]

The perceptions of Americans and horses are really another basis of myth.  The American cowboy worked on horseback, but most people did not ride all that much.  Look at the Amish communities.  Their pride is a good buggy horse and their buggys.  As my wife has horses, I can state first hand that many people could not afford a horse if it was given to them.  My father farmed with horses and used to claim that the 80 acres he grew up was 40 acres for the farm and 40 to support the horses.  The horse is cheap, its the feed and tack that adds up.  A buggy, wagon or whatever permits one horse to pull people and goods.  Riding is inefficient (and if you do not do it a lot painful)

DP

[JCKelly]

I recall that one of the Eastern Civil War battlefields, perhaps Gettysburg, the museum has an old tree stump skewered by a steel ramrod.

[Mad Monk]

Shooting a ramrod out of the barrel does not work if the grain in the ramrod is not straight.  Angled grain ramrods tend to stay in the bore in wedged pieces with the ball still in the bore with a flintlock.  Speaking from experience!!!

Dutch Bill

[northmn]

Somewhere I seem to remember splinters going downrange.

DP

[Roger Fisher]

Shooting a ramrod out of the barrel does not work if the grain in the ramrod is not straight.  Angled grain ramrods tend to stay in the bore in wedged pieces with the ball still in the bore with a flintlock.  Speaking from experience!!!

Dutch Bill

Couple or three winters ago good ol Ken Milburn's wood rod went down range trying to hit a silohuette.  We tracked it in the snow and she was in 3 pieces never did hit the silohuette...!
That was out of a flinter (lock on the wrong side however)

[Maven]

northmn, Did you perhaps confuse Cary Grant with Gary Cooper?

[rich pierce]

This isn't "colonial" but my grandfather told me stories his father told him.  My great-grandfather fought in the Civil War, with Sherman.  Said that there were orchards without a leaf or branch on a tree after the battle but the trees were skewered with ramrods as in the noise, confusion and fear, many soldiers shot the ramrod from the gun.

[Collector]

Cary Grant was selling hotdogs in Coney Island before he went to Hollywood.  The owner of the stand told him he'd stave to death if he went.  You might be thinking of Ben Johnson (Shane - Wild Bunch, etc.) who was a real life cowboy and rodeo competitor before becoming a stunt man and an Academy Award winning actor.

So far as shooting ramrods out of a barrel, in a movie, the only one that I can recollect was Clark Gable in "Across The Wide Missouri," 1951.

[Mike R]

Cary Grant was selling hotdogs in Coney Island before he went to Hollywood.  The owner of the stand told him he'd stave to death if he went.  You might be thinking of Ben Johnson (Shane - Wild Bunch, etc.) who was a real life cowboy and rodeo competitor before becoming a stunt man and an Academy Award winning actor.

So far as shooting ramrods out of a barrel, in a movie, the only one that I can recollect was Clark Gable in "Across The Wide Missouri," 1951.

It was also done if I recall in the Kentuckian by Burt Lancaster.  Hit a charging indian just in the nick of time [close range]. 

[wmrike]

Long range shots.  There's good shooting and then there are the lucky shots.  If you ask someone about his best shot and he replies, odds are that he's relating his luckiest shot.  If you ask a really good shooter about his best shot, he's likely to just shrug his shoulders becasue the lucky shot is of no interest to him.

Putting the face of reality on things, let's run some ballistics.  If you start with a period correct gun, it might be something like a .54 caliber with those little, low fixed sights like on the originals, and be sighted in for 50 yards or so.  The heroic 400 yard shot would require a hold about 35-40 over the target.  At that point, how would one even see the target, let alone hit it, and say it was good shooting?  Any takers?

The only conclusion I can draw is that at best the tall tales were very lucky shots, and at the worst, fabrications.

[northmn]

I think it may have been Cooper (High Noon).   Memory not all that good nor did I watch all that many old shows.   The claim was made that a friend told him he could get a job as a stunt man and he ended up becoming an actor.  Another actor that is very familiar with horses is Viggo Mortenson.  Riding a horse is kind of like any other activity.  Some are great and some not so great.

DP

[Daryl]

Charlton Heston shot his rod out of the barrel and into a charging indain, killing him instantly, then retrieved it unbroken.  How about that for a Hollywood stunt? "The Mountain Men".

[Dphariss]

Long range shots.  There's good shooting and then there are the lucky shots.  If you ask someone about his best shot and he replies, odds are that he's relating his luckiest shot.  If you ask a really good shooter about his best shot, he's likely to just shrug his shoulders becasue the lucky shot is of no interest to him.

Putting the face of reality on things, let's run some ballistics.  If you start with a period correct gun, it might be something like a .54 caliber with those little, low fixed sights like on the originals, and be sighted in for 50 yards or so.  The heroic 400 yard shot would require a hold about 35-40 over the target.  At that point, how would one even see the target, let alone hit it, and say it was good shooting?  Any takers?

The only conclusion I can draw is that at best the tall tales were very lucky shots, and at the worst, fabrications.

Have you ever actually tried shooting a rifle at long range?
Where I live aiming points above the target may be a problem. But a tree or other object can provide the necessary aiming point above the target. At 300 yards this is not as high as one might think.
A friend was able to get hits on a 500 yard gong with a 54 by holding on a spot up the on the rim rock.
So far as luck. There is always luck in shooting at unknown ranges or at ranges the shooter is unfamiliar with. But a significant number of British officers were killed at ranges some here seem to doubt. The 400 yard shot described by Col Hanger and the killing to Gen Frazier at 300 are both pretty good examples. The 300 yard shot is pretty easy to recreate and I did. The story has 3 shots being fired and one killing the General. I fired 3 shots at 290+ yards (laser) and got one hit on a man silhouette. Required about 5 ft of hold over with 75 gr of FFFG in a 50 caliber.

The problem, especially in the east is that nobody shoots much over 100 yards they see 150 as long range. If loaded to 1700-1800 fps a 50-54 sighted 1" high at 100 requires little hold over at 150. But if the shooter never shoots past 100 he has no idea what it takes to shoot to 150 or 300.
Anyone interested  with a 300 or 500 yard rifle range or another place to shoot to similar ranges should go do some shooting. Though it is helpful if its dusty enough to see bullet strikes.

Dan

[Daryl]

wmrike-  One does not hold the rifle over the target. One raises the front sight over the rear and puts the blade on or the bead underneath the spot to be hit.  Practise will teach how much to raise the front sight over the rear.  Most guns will allow this hold without the cheek being entirely off the stock, which aides accurate and steady aiming.  There have also been a number of writers who also make this mistake about thinking you have to aim over the target as they haven't learned to shoot long range with open sights, either.
Reading Elmer Keith on long range handgunning teaches the proper method with nonadjustable sights.

[Burgess_rudy]

When I was a teenager I caught the metal detecting bug. I found a bullet at civil war battlefield. I had wondered why the bullet looked the way it did and then one day it came to me and I got my civil war musket to see if it was true. Yep, the top of the compressed bullet was formed by a ramrod as mine fit the impression perfectly. I believe I can safely say the bullet was fired with the ramrod in the barrel.

Now on to colonial myths. I have no doubt that many of these reports of marksmanship published in the colony newspapers were propaganda to psyche the British into fearing their enemy. It happens in all wars.

[Dphariss]

wmrike-  One does not hold the rifle over the target. One raises the front sight over the rear and puts the blade on or the bead underneath the spot to be hit.  Practise will teach how much to raise the front sight over the rear.  Most guns will allow this hold without the cheek being entirely off the stock, which aides accurate and steady aiming.  There have also been a number of writers who also make this mistake about thinking you have to aim over the target as they haven't learned to shoot long range with open sights, either.
Reading Elmer Keith on long range handgunning teaches the proper method with nonadjustable sights.

This like, many things, is true and I know people that use this method.
But like all things concerning iron sights it varies with the shooter. I have used the raise the front sight method and I don't like it. So I hold over.
Its a "your mileage may vary" thing.
Some years back I spent an afternoon shooting a 5" S&W 29 at a 55 gal drum at 400+. I found that once I determined the right place to hold on a tree above hits were easy. 4-5 in a cylinder full. But it required 15 ft or so IIRC.
I do the same thing when shooting  a long rifle. But I shoot with both eyes open, this might make a difference???

Dan

[SCLoyalist]

Long range shots.  There's good shooting and then there are the lucky shots.  ....
The only conclusion I can draw is that at best the tall tales were very lucky shots, and at the worst, fabrications.

I used to shoot silhouettes regularly, and once I got the hang of it, could  knock down about 3 or 4 bears (size approx 18”X35”) out of four, holding a sight picture of the base of the front blade even with the top of the rear sight.   But, I was competing regularly and so I was in practice, the silhouette couldn't move while I aimed,  and I knew the range  was exactly 200 yds.     That experience seems pretty consistent with accounts I’ve read of (post-colonial) Battle of New Orleans where one British officer was killed out around 220 yds after an American officer ordered a rifleman to ‘snuff his candle’ and another group of mounted British officers realized they were being targeted and picked off by a single American rifleman.

For a 300 or 400 yard target, I think the range estimation problem coupled with the rainbow trajectory of a roundball ‘way out there’ puts super long range shots into the myth or luck category.   If I’m reading my Lyman trajectory tables right,  estimating range is going to be critical.   Suppose the rifleman sees a target he thinks is 300 yds away, but the range is actually 275 yds.  The 25 yd ranging error translates to about 3 feet of vertical difference in the bullet’s path in those extra 25 yds – the difference between a hit to the chest and a buzzing sound overhead.   At 400 yds, the problem becomes worse.  And,   any crosswind will give the target another foot or two of breathing room. 

Since we weren’t there, and we aren’t the riflemen attempting those shots, we don’t know and can’t prove or disprove the accounts, or know how much luck was involved, but, consistent, aimed single shot hits at those ranges sure don’t seem likely to me.

[bob in the woods]

I have been out moose hunting and game spotted was estimated at 600 to 700 yds away by most in the party.Actual range was 360 yds!  Most shooters /hunters just don't get the chance to see what 300 or 400 yds looks like.   I shoot in the 1000 yd matches and have tried my .54 round ball at 200 to 300 yds.  I can tell you that if you are familiar with this shooting and with your rifle, hitting the target is more common than not.  If you know your site picture, a 300 yd shot is fairly certain for me. As for the wind...I practice in the wind.  Most of the guys shooting 1000 yd BPC are better at reading it than I am, and it is a learned skill. For those who shoot long range, hitting the target has very little to do with luck.

[Daryl]

Elmer K. used to say that hitting at long range with a handgun is purely accidental, but if you practise at long range with that handgun, you'll have more long range accidents than the fellow who doesn't.  As Bob says, it takes practise.  It is a common fact that many people judge others by their own experiences - if they can't then no one else can either.  This is not confined to the shooting sports.  Some truly amazing feats have been accomplished by those who merely make the attempt and do not admit defeat due to it 'sounding' difficult.