what is/was an "accurate" long rifle

[The other DWS]

what is the standard longrifles are to be judged by.

 I'm coming here from the ASSRA schuetzen rifle game and our standard is the 200 yard target with an inch and a half 25 point or x-ring center all other rings are 3/4 inch wide.  this translated to roughly a 3/4 moa.  it is a standardized version of the widely used "german ring target" of the 1870-90 era
we have a number of shooters who have shot 10-shot 250--bench rest center fire, and a record of 248 for rimfire.  10 shot and 100 shot offhand scores records are into the low 240s and 2300s respectively. While black powder muzzle loading schuetzen scores were pretty good they were not as good as current shooters can do---even throwing out the benchresters.

What are current commonly accepted standards for a long rifle and how do they compare to what is known of actual historic standards of the longrifle era?  Are there even any recorded scores or standards?  One reads of Tim ______(was it Pickering?) shot at Saratoga that nailed the Brit general but was that the unusually skilled man with a special gun

I remember reading about squirrel hunting pioneers and being only familiar with upper midwestern red squirrels was very impressed  Later I found out about the much larger--and slower-- squirrels then common on the Ohio tributary valleys,  (A "brace" of them sufficient to feed a pioneer family---clearly not the red squirrels I was used to)  So what was accurate?  minute of deer, squirrel or Indian for that matter?

[Don Getz]

DWS......my first question would be.....are those boys with their Scheutzen rifles shooting those groups with "open" sights ?....I would guess not.    A round ball works pretty well, but, shooting with a round ball at 200 yards, even with a
scope, I don't will compete with those kind of groups.     Don

[Pete G.]

An accurate rifle is one with which you can consistiently hit your intended target as long as you don't flinch, close your eys, jerk the trigger, etc.....
So it all depends on what you are shooting at.
If I can keep ten offhand shots in the ten ring of a B-8 target, I am happy. The rifle can do it every time, but the attachment to the ground seems to be a bit shakey. Some days more than others.

[JTR]

There's some pictures of targets shot about the 1930s in Dillions book, so the guns could have easily been over a hundred years old then. I don't remember exactly, but seems the groups were a couple of inches or so. And I don't remember if the shots were off a bench, sticks, or offhand.
I doubt the average Kentucky could outshoot the average Schuetzen, just like the average Schuetzen doesn't have a prayer against the average bench rest rifle of today.
Personally, I'd be thrilled shooting 2 inch groups offhand at 100 yards with a flinter.
But if you go benchrest shooting today and your gun will only do 1/4 inch groups at 100 yards, ya might as well go home.
John  

[northmn]

First, ballistically, RBs start going to H--l at over 100 yards.  Still there are some buffalo sticks shooters and bench types that win at 100 yards on X's using a small bore equivalent rifle target.  Maybe sub 1 inch groups   The big issue as mentioned is the use of open sights.  Where the bench and X stick shooters use very precise peep sights, a long rifle limitation is primarily the open sights.  As I get older my longrifles get more limited.

DP

[jwh1947]

Maybe comparing tuna fishing with brook trout fishing, at best, assuming there are no barrel stretching stories told.  We can add to the accuracy mix unmached champ around here, Johnny Whitecotton, shot at 50 feet with 22, High Standard Supermatic...100-10X slow fire, 1956, group size never replicated.  Target hangs in local range clubhouse.

And  in 1968  there was Frank Longenecker from Lebanon firing a NM Garand,  who, they concluded, shot a  100-7V rapid fire at 200 yards sitting, only he pulled up on the wrong target.  20 shots on neighbor's target, and neighbor's recorded score was a 99-3 V, taking the lowest 10.  Two distinct groups in the black.  Fort Indiantown Gap, Eastern PA High Power League.  Original target hangs in my workroom; I shot the 99-3V.  Frank got written down for a zero and never lived it down.  Actually, he packed up and left before the scores were done. 

[The other DWS]

right, most of the contemporary schuetzens I'm thinking of are scoped.  hardly counts.  I'd have to check the records to see what they are doing in the iron sight class--and those are usually adjustable peep sights too.  I'm trying to track down those scores for iron sights only.

so,  you're saying generally a couple MOA at 100 with patched round balls is fair accuracy for modern standards.

Is the ANY real documentation on actual "historic" accuracy.  when they were shooting at a turkey's head over a log, do we know what the range would have been?  a turkey head would be what--2 or 3 inches in irregular diameter and moving

  In checking on that Tim ______  that sniped Gen Fraser at the 2nd battle of Saratoga; it turns out that he was Tim Murphy and that he was supposed to have been able to hit a 7" inch target at 250 yards.   However, while he was indeed a historical rifleman and part of Morgan's group sent to Saratoga, much of his story appears to be unsubtantiated and probably of only 19th century origin.  7 inches at 250 yards would be a reasonable 2 or 2.5 MOA, but it sounds like that'd be a real stretcher to get a patched Rb to carry that far with accuracy

[jwh1947]

Good lord almighty, turkey heads over logs?  In these parts we used to do it after KRA meetings, flintlocks only.  Neighbor complained and ASPCA sent written complaint to law enforcement and to host of the event, near Carlisle.  Only problem was, law officer was one of us.  He hit the turkey heads repeatedly.

We did comply out of political correctness.  But, what's the big deal?  We ate them.

Then there was the traditional Hegins pigeon shoot up in the cola region. Now history.  Some people don't know where the pigeons came from.  They were nuisance pigeons rounded up from downtown Philadelphia and Harrisburg.  Now they poison them.  And that's the rest of the story.  Wayne

[The other DWS]

I like it, maybe we should put PITA, I mean PETa organizers behind logs ---no netter not go any farther there
(As for the city pigeons, nothing but winged rats, only things worse are the seagulls hanging around out Great Lakes basin landfills)

 My understanding is that the tethered turkey behind the log with only its head showing was the old time traditional way of turkey shoots.  gotta assume that turkey heads have not changed in size over the years---even though their bodies have.  I'd assume they'd be about 2-3 MOA at 100 yards.

Now, what was the range you all were shooting at?

Do you think that late 18th century and early 19th century rifles and riflemen would do as well, better, worse? 
One factor that might make a difference was the quality of the powder available to them.
might be differences in across the board gun building quality, some really really good, some of lesser quality,

then there is the intangible that we shoot pretty much for the fun of it.  they shot if they wanted to eat, or to live.  we may actually shoot more shots than they did over our lifetimes, but winning a match pales in motivation in comparison to keeping your family from starvation, of keeping their scalps

[northmn]

You just mentioned a hot debate item.  Are we better shots today than our forefathers   There is little difference in shooting for competition and for necessity as far as ability, except that competition shooting would make you a better shot.  When I was growing up I had a chance to talk to and interact with a lot of depression era old North Country woodsies that rarely ate beef no matter what the laws stated.  To them a box of cartridges was worth about 18-20 deer and the old 94 Winchester with peep sights, the aperture long lost for the peep, was very popular.  One story was told about one of them that even carried his 32 special to the outhouse.  They were not bad shots, but they mostly shot up close and maybe took an occasional running shot, but it was fairly close.  Ammo was expensive.  Any top target shot that didn't shake from buck fever could easily duplicate their shooting.  Why would it be any different back then.  I grew up with a BB gun shooting English sparrows off the family farm, burned more 22 bricks than I can count and shot a lot of matches with some wins.  No one in the early days shot that much.  There is an issue of natural talent, which statistically would be about 6% of the population, with the understanding that 50% of the population would shoot worse than average. (definition of average).  No matter how much some people shoot they may not get that good, like any other endeavor.  Remember that Tim Murphy was specifically called up by Morgan and that he made his shots out of a tree using a rest.  He was in the top 6%, which could be duplicated by the top 6% today.  About the only thing I will concede is that target shooters get fixated at specific ranges where folks like Murphy likely shot at different ranges and were better judges of range. 

DP

[TgeorgeZ]

If by long rifle, you are referring to any black-powder fed muzzle-loader, I think bench rest slug-guns can meet or exceed your standards.

I'm referring to those under-hammer jobs with false muzzles that shoot twoipiece composite paper patched elongate bullets.

I have read about them, but never personally seen one.  I would love to do so, but don't even know of any internet sights on them.

Then there is the Whitworth Rifle which fired a .45 picket bullet through a hexagonal bore. It hit targets a mile away in the civil war.

[JTR]

It Would be fun to shoot one of the old guns! Or maybe shoot an old barrel in a new stock, as the old wood is pretty weak no matter how sturdy it looks now.
The problem would be finding a good barrel to shoot. Out of all the guns I've owned, none have had what you could call a shinny bore in really good condition. Probably the best bore on a gun I have now is an early-ish Adams County rifle with a 2 inch thick butt and a 44/45 inch long barrel. It's about 55 cal. and 1 3/16" at the breech, tapered, then flared out really nicely. The rifling is really deeply cut, and all there throughout the bore, but pretty rough, rusted and corroded in some areas, no doubt enough to affect accuracy.
If someone was lucky enough to have a rifle with a really pristine original bore, I'd guess that you could get close to the original accuracy out of it,,, the problem is finding one with a really pristine bore.
But it would be fun!

John

[The other DWS]

I think one really has to draw a pretty hard line between patched round ball and conical bullets as well as purpose-built bench rest guns.  Whitworths, the sniper rifles of Berdan etc, and the Irish team rifles at Creedmoor were indeed muzzle loading Black powder rifles, as was the percussion ear schuetzen; however they are really not comparable to a KY/PA/etc longrifle with a patched round ball and must be judged by differing standards
  I fully expect that my original 45 cal schuetzen with the right bullet and load is capable of sub-MOA out to 200 yards,  but with me behind the trigger----I'll bet most of you would beat me with a patched roundball smoothie.    I was citing schuetzen accuracy simply to explain my personal reference point.  Its the only firearms accuracy game I have any personal experience with, other than a few years flirtation with IHMSA a long time ago.

I believe that Tim Murphy (making the assumption that the stories are indeed true) was the Carlos Hathcock, or maybe the Alvin York of his era.  
They were guys with the whole package, superior vision, physical skills, "sniper mindset", and knowledge AND the ability to select and use the correct tool for their task.

I guess I had hoped that was someone in this group who was familiar with historical records or accounts that would allow us to see into the minds of the shooters of the flint lock era to understand what standard they judged accuracy by.   We have some ideas of how our arms compare with the originals in terms of art and craft.  We can make some fair comparisons between us and them as artists and craftsmen.  I'm wondering about the functional aspects of our creations and our ability as the end users.

 Is any one familiar with any military records of an accuracy requirement either for arms acceptance or minimum training standard?  What I recall is more of a reloading speed standard than an accuracy one--and that from the smoothbore musket era.

Short of finding something like that, it sounds like I'm stuck at the turkey-head-at-unknown-distance and minute of squirrel-out-of-tree (probably no more than 150 feet at the most)  in essence probably 2-3 MOA off an improvised rest---maybe a tad better for an exceptional gun and gunner.  so much for snuffing candles, driving nails, and shooting the ace out of a card---except at close range

[Captchee]

   I also grew up shooting .
 Many a sparrow fell to my Red rider .
 More then a few Mule deer and  a couple elk with my 22 as well .



  Myself , I  try and go to as many events as I can  when im not hunting .
 Hunting wise I  bet I have not used a center fire rifle for 20+ years . Even though I  often hunt in those seasons with my flinlock

 Shoot wise ? i again only use my flinlocks

 I like off hand  over benched . Not only do you have to be steady . But you have to be consistent . Best I ever have done is  5 shots   on target . Shot off hand   using a patched RB at 325 yards .
 Group was less the 16 inches .
 Personaly   out to about 200 , I can consistently place a ball on a 3ft X3 ft target  when shooting off hand .
 Paper group , while rested is less the 2 inches at 100 , with the patched RB .

 And NO  I don’t hold 3ft high at  325  yards  but I do see about 20 inches of drop at that distance

 I don’t call that good shooting , but probably more like average .  As I normally come in  somewhere in the top 10  shooters . On a good day  im in the top 3 .
 I do think we shoot more today . But im not sure that computes to being better shooters .
Depends on the person and the place .
 I also think it depends on what the rifle was built for .
 Would a 40 Rod match rifle stand against say a  1000 yard long range rifle
 Boy that would depend on the shooter  as it would require different sights .

 Here is a couple scans from dillons and Ned Roberts books.













As a standard ? Boy I would have to say . Can you hit what  your shooting at ?
 I think in many cases to include mine . The rifle will shoot a lot better then what the shooter is capable of .
 
 But I can tell you this .
 I  know a couple older folks that  I  often shoot against , To include Jerry Huddleston .
 Even with Jerry”s eyes , I would not  want him to level his rifle at me  even at ranges past 300  and for a couple others  even over 400 .
 While they  probably wouldn’t take the button of my shirt . They  most likly could hit a target  my size . Especially if the rifle was rested ..
 might take them a couple shots to get the range , elevation and windage down . but even those shots would  probably be close enough  to  definatly have to  zigging for cover .

 Its flat scary how accurate they are with a RB

[flintriflesmith]

There are lots of references to the shooting accuracy and confidence of American riflemen at about the time of the Revolution. This one by the well known British officer, George Hanger, is much more of a first hand report than the those about T. Murphy because it is based on Hanger's personal experience. Hanger was very interested in arms and shooting and later wrote a book as a guide to sportsmen.

Other eyewitness accounts describe the shooting exhibitions put on by the Virginia and Maryland riflemen on their march to join the Army in Boston at the start of the Rev War. Those involve men being so confident in their fellow frontier riflemen's skills that they shot boards out from between each others' knees --- much to the amazement of the Pennsylvania townfolk.  Those accounts have been quoted/published many times and may also be on line if you search Daniel Morgan's riflemen.
Gary

QUOTE from Col. George  Hanger

I never in my life saw better rifles (or men who shot better) than those made in America; they are chiefly made in Lancaster, and two or three neighboring towns in that vicinity, in Pennsylvania. The barrels weigh about six pounds two or three ounces, and carry a ball no larger than thirty-six to the pound; at least I never saw one of the larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds. I am not going to relate anything respecting the American war; but to mention one instance, as a proof of most excellent skill of an American rifleman. If any man shew me an instance of better shooting, I will stand corrected.
Colonel, now General Tartleton, 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. There was a rivulet in the enemy's front, and a mill on it, to which we stood directly with our horses' heads fronting, observing their motions. It was an absolute plain field between us and the mill; not so much as a single bush on it. Our orderly-bugle stood behind us, about 3 yards, but with his horse's side to our horses' tails. A rifleman passed over the mill-dam, evidently observing two officers, and laid himself down on his belly; for, in such positions, they always lie, to take a good shot at a long distance. He took a deliberate and cool shot at my friend, at me, and the bugle-horn man. (I have passed several times over this ground, and ever observed it with the greatest attention; and I can positively assert that the distance he fired from, at us, was full four hundred yards.)
Now, observe how well this fellow shot. It was in the month of August, and not a breath of wind was stirring. Colonel Tartleton's horse and mine, I am certain, were not anything like two feet apart; for we were in close consultation, how we should attack with our troops, which laid 300 yards in the wood, and could not be perceived by the enemy. A rifle-ball passed between him and me; looking directly to the mill, I observed the flash of the powder. I said to my friend, "I think we had better move, or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, shortly, amusing themselves at our expence. The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle horn man, behind us, and directly central, jumped off his horse, and said, "Sir, my horse is shot." The horse staggered, fell down, and died. He was shot directly behind the foreleg, 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 woods, and got another horse. We had a number of spare horses, led by negro lads.

[Joey R]

Well said Pete G. It still culminates to the nut behind the butt.

[northmn]

Trying to separate facts from legend gets rather difficult.  How many people on a firing range do you see that can't hit the paper much less the black at 100 yards tell you that while they may not be good on targets, put a whitetail out there and by golly hes down.  In my earlier years I used to party hunt as that was a common method in my country.  Out of the dozen or so in the group, there were about 3 of use that could actually shoot well, the rest when they got deer were close.  A couple could not hit the woods.   Been a long time ago.  Someone makes a long hail Mary shot and then talks like it is common place for them and if witnessed, some think he is that good.
Consider that today roundball molds are made to drop ball within .001 round, we can get a yard of cloth that is pretty standard for patching and the powders are made and screened under modern QC standards.  We may load with a tight combination and a short starter.  Our potential accuracy with modern barrels is better than theirs.  No evidence indicates that GGG grandad shot 5 shot groups.  His standards would be the ability to hit something fairly consistently at so many paces.  Playing cards were a common standard, but I believe were larger than todays poker decks.  But if that card is hit once then everyone is happy.  I feel that where they may have been more experienced than us is that we shoot on ranges at set yardages.  If you know the range you can adjust sights accordingly and be pretty consistant.  I think they may have picked out targets like say a dirt clod, at a longer range and then had to estimate the range and shot at them.  They may have developed a better feel for odd yardages.  Kind of like when I shoot my longbow.  Kind of fun to go out roving with a Zwickey and shoot at various weeds etc.

DP

[The other DWS]

A couple thought come to mind,

  One is regarding the context of those 18th contemporary Brit reports.  I think that you have to consider that in England hunting was simply impossible for the common lot----the guys desperate enough to join the army, or dumb enough to get empressed.  They had NO previous firearms experience and their military doctrine of that time did not teach them aimed fire.  Only a few upper crust officers would have had any experience with potentially accurate arms and aimed fire in a sporting context.
 In contrast North America hunting was an critical part of rural culture, a major contribution to the food supply so familiarization with conscious aimed controlled fire was fairly common, even with smoothbores. We may not have been a nation of riflemen yet but we were a proto-nation of hunters who know how to aim accurately
 When you factor in the use--to whatever extent--of rifled arms in the hands of experienced hunter/indianfighter/marksmen its no wonder the Brits were blown away, in more ways than one, by colonial marksmanship.  The fact that the notoriously petrified brit military establishment began a program for rifled arms acquisition and training to supplement the musket equipped regiments so soon after the war indicates the shock it gave their military leaders.

The comment about powder & lead quality got me wondering;  Has anyone seen a good book or article they can refer me to about the development of the powder and lead industry and distribution in the flintlock era?   supply and distribution of "munitions", powder/lead/and to a lesser extent gunflints was a critical part of colonial era trade and diplomacy between the mother countries and their colonies as well as their diplomatic dealings with the native people.  Without "munitions" our prized longrifles are only so much sculptural art.
  I've been trying to do as much serious reading on David Crockett as I can recently and he built a "powder mill" in Lawrenceburg along with a couple other mills in a complex that got wiped out in a flood.  I'd like to know more about how such regional mills functioned in the economy--raw material sources, production and distribution.
  I know that lead mines were of strategic importance for the fledgling nation. Lead shortages, which may well have been a transportation distribution problem as much as anything were a real problem in the early phases of the Revolution (as were powder shortages).
The early national surveys and explorations were charged with seeking and noting any such locations right along with gold and silver.  The discovery of the lead deposits in NW IL and SW WI caused a "rush" not to be exceeded until the discovery of gold in CA in 48/49.  The acquisition of the French-pioneered lead mines south and slightly west of St Louis were one of the major immediate "prizes" of Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase that is commonly forgotten in the dust of Lewis and Clark.

[northmn]

First of all we did not blow the British army away.  They kicked our butts soundly in almost every battle.  When they did not they were outnumbered.  We had this discussion some time ago ad nausiem.  Morgan had 500 riflemen at Saratoga, which is really not a large force.  they did play havoc with a very tired and overextended British force, but Saratoga was a clumination of several small battles and occurances.  The British did have German riflemen in their units, but our riflemen were said to be able to outrange thm.  I looked up shot towers a while back as there was discussion on shot making as in smaller shot.  those deposits iof lead you are talking about also led to shot towers after they were developed in the very early 1800's.  Shot towers made shot for rifles and muskets as well as birdshot.  St. Louis had a big one. 
I have tried to determine how common rifles were in colonial days.  While I cannot find anything definite, I have found they are likely somewhat regional in popularity.  Also they were very expensive.  When young recruits showed up they mostly did not have a firearm.   There is record of Old Hickory being surprised at that when he headed for New Orleans.  I cannot make even an educated guess at how common rifles were but I would not be surprised if they were only about 25% of the firearms owned at the times.  Tradesmen worked during the day from "can see to can't see"  as did many of the farmers.  How much leisure time was there.  Rules about resting on the Sabboth may have helped keeping some form working to death.  Did they have hunting "rituals" like we had in MN for deer season??

DP

[Mike R]

I simple terms I grew up thinking that an accurate [precise] rifle must do 1 minute of angle groups at 100 yds [or better].  That is still my criteria. Accuracy and precision are two different things--precision is how close it can group under ideal conditions. Accuracy involves all sorts of things like sights and holds and eyesight and conditions--but comes down to where the group falls on the target.   There are some MLers that can do that [1'].  With my old eyes  I am getting used to more like 4-6 minute accuracy with iron sights. ....

[Model19]

Interesting discussion!   All kinds of good points made about equipment and time period and more.  All I can add is that the Cabela's here in Maine had a benchrest ML in the fancy gun room awhile ago.   I did not memorize the details on the maker or if it was rifled, etc etc, but it looked NOTHING like a "standard" ML you'd want to carry in the field.  It was as purpose built as any benchrest or HighPower rifle of today is.   
And I'm of the "1 MOA is accurate" group too. 
And I also scored an X at 600 yds on my neighbors target once in a Service Rifle match.    

[Artificer]

I believe the best we can ever do to determine how accurate original long rifles were in their day would be from accounts Gary already posted.  There just isn't any way we can exactly duplicate what they did when the rifles were new.

Even if one of the Master Gunsmiths at Colonial Williamsburg, or anywhere else someone makes the entire rifle themselves, made and tested a rifle, the test would only really be good for that barrel/lock/stock combination AND we wouldn't be using the same powder or even lead and patching material they used.  It would be close and would be representative, but that is about all. 

In international muzzleloading competition, they often use original rifles, though it is more common to see English rifles used as they were not used and abused as much as American Rifles were.   However, those rifles are nowhere close to being "new" as the rifles would have been back in the day.  They also use modern powder, lube and even the patching material is going to be different.

As a young Sergeant, I had the distinct honor and privilege of having Carlos Hathcock show me how to "properly" sight in a rifle.  Carlos had me shoot one shot out of a clean and dry barrel PER DAY at different yard lines, different positions and different weather.  He had me record time, temperature, wind, humidity, and anything else that may have come into play as far as accuracy.  He once told me that if a fly "f@rted" between the bullet and target, he wanted that recorded.  He lived by the example that you had to know where the first and possibly only round would hit from a clean/cold barrel.  I'm sure the best American marksmen knew that about their rifles as well. 

If you can hold an 8" group offhand from 100 yards, that is plenty accurate enough to take a deer with one shot every time.  A man's torso is about 12" wide by 16" long.  At the 400 yard shot Gary mentioned from the original account, if the rifle held a 3 MOA group, it was accurate enough to take that shot.  If the rifleman knew his rifle and knew the powder, patch, lube and ball he was using and how to read wind; I would see that as maybe a difficult shot but certainly not impossible for an excellent shooter from the prone position. 

[Artificer]

When I came home on boot camp leave in January 1972, I bought my first ML - a T/C Hawken .50 cal.  I used their patches, their lube, a 60 grain powder charge and Grandpa helped me cast the balls.  I laid out a shooting position and the target was exactly 100 yards measured by using a measuring tape.  I brushed about 4 inches of snow off the ground and sat down behind the line in a good sitting position.  Even though a cold wind was blowing and I was sitting on cold ground, I fired three shots and knew I had "thrown" the second round.  The three shot group measured just under 1 3/4 inches.  I was dumbfounded.  The rifle shot better when I found the exact powder charge, lube, ball, patch it liked.  That did it, I was hooked forever. 

My belief is that a properly made LR then or now would hold that size group or better. 

[northmn]

The one inch group rule is a contamination of our thinking using modern scoped rifles.  As mentioned, a playing card or some other mark may be set up at 100 paces, which could be about any range between 90-120 yards.  If they were sighting in, when they hit the card it was in.  A card back then was larger than today, I just cannot remember the dimensions.  Most of us when we read Hangars account assume that that rifleman could perform that feat every time.  On another day he might shoot hiigh or low, etc.  It would not really matter if his rifle grouped 1" or 6", that was one shot.  Another common target was a split log with a X marked on it.  Many of the depression era hunters I knew when I was younger never shot their deer rifles at a bullseye, and would not waste five shots on a group, but they did get their game and efficiently.  Most were passable shots with their rifles.They would be about as close to modern times as I can think of for the colonial riflemen. 

DP 

[The other DWS]

NorthMN,  I wouldn't really disagree with you for the most part.  In situations were "we" were fighting in the "continental manner" we got out clocks cleaned on a regular basis until the regular army was well drilled in the that way of fighting by Von Steuben and equipped with french-supplied arms.
  However the fact is that the Brits recognized that in situations where we were able to give individually aimed fire they took much higher casualties before they could close to bayonets and butts; and soon afterwards they began developing their own rifle regiments and the Baker.   In addition it might be noted that after Yorktown many of the regimental officers began to place more time and money in actual live fire practice rather than "dumb-show" drill in their training routines as war with revolutionary France started looming n the horizon.

 I believe that the Bunker/Breeds Hill battle can present a case in point.  the Patriot forces were in defensive positions and could afford to take individual, fire-at-will, aim as long as their ammo held out, and they inflicted a shockingly heavy toll in the British attackers that stunned their officers.  now it WAS a frontal assault on a defensive position (and I'd love to know which way the wind was blowing) but still I doubt there'd have been 1 rifle in 100 arms in the Patriot hands in that encounter.