what is/was an "accurate" long rifle

[Artificer]

As to wind direction, this may help:

"The smoke billowing from Charlestown lent an almost surreal backdrop to the fighting, as the winds were such that the smoke was kept from the field of battle."

Frothingham, pp. 144–145

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bunker_Hill

It seems that neither side in the Battle of Breed's hill opened fire until they were about 45-50 yards apart.  Good musket range for accuracy.  What is probably more important is that the American Commanders were walking through the lines reminding the men to "shoot low" as normal aim would have sent their musket balls downhill and over top the heads of the British. To my knowledge, I don't think the British Officers did that.  Many of the British Musket balls probably went over the heads of the Americans. 

The British also made their first two charges laden down with full kit and didn't get rid of the 80 to 100 pounds of field gear until they made the third charge.  Even when the troops are in good shape, the exertion of the first two charges carrying that gear would have thrown off their aim.  Add the fact the Americans were behind dug fortifications, all made it more difficult for the British to hit what they aimed at.

[flintriflesmith]

... 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.  ...
DP 

I have always felt that the main lesson from Hanger's account is found in this short part in the middle of it "...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.)"
Here’s what I take away from the account: 1) Hanger had seen enough riflemen in action to realize that when the rifleman dropped into the prone position he was getting ready to take a long shot; (2) He realized that the rifleman was shooting at the group of them, three men and three horses, and (3) by covering the ground later he was able to do more than guess at the range.
On that day the shot was actually “too good.” If it had been off a bit to the right or left an officer  might have been hit – instead the ball passed between them.
Gary

[northmn]

Thje Baker was developed after 1800 and used in the Napoleanic wars.  Bailey wrote that he did not feel taht the Baker's development was influenced much by the "American Experience"  As the Baker is a bastardized Jaeger he may be correct.  The 95th was used as scouts and as sniping units, where they popped off French officers.  In America, the rifle was used in the same manner.  The British at Breeds Hill and Bunker Hill thought they could "overwhelm the defenders by a show of British might", and did not use much of anything for tactics and just went head on.  That lesson, the rather arrogant British generals had to relearn more than once through history.  About the only battle where the American forces really shone was Daniel Morgans victory at Cowpens, which was carried off because the British were so used to chasing militia.  We did not really win the Revolution as much as it became too expensive for the British to carry on.  Our independence was won by one vote in Parliament, but considering the relations afterward we may have done them an economic favor. 
I take away about the same thing from Hangars experience.  The riflemen did not shoot offhand.  Murphy went up into a tree and obviously rested his rifle when he made his two shots on Fraser and his aide (Murphy had a swivel breech)  and that Hangar had enough experience to know that the rifleman could get more than a little lucky.


DP

[omark]

i cant remember the book right now, but i read a supposedly well researched account of the battle of bunker/breeds hill. as stated above, the americans were armed with similar if not the same smoothbore military muskets. the brits couldnt believe the accuracy of the americans. turned out the americans were using buck and ball loads but the brits didnt know about it.  fwiw   mark

[The other DWS]

I didn't men to imply that the Baker was in anyway derived from the American long rifle at all.  our long rifles simply would not function in a continental tactical format.  at best they could have been used as long range sniper rifles and thats about it.  The Baker was a much better compromise,  sturdy enough to take its place in the line, when used with the smaller ball it could be shot almost as fast as a smoothbore and with the larger ball could deliver rifle accuracy. To me the Baker looked more like the illegitimate child of an officers fusil and an english gentleman's sporting rifle than the clubbier Jaeger rifle

   My impression is that it was the American capability to make use of individual aimed fire---even with muskets--when it was appropriate,  and perhaps the role of riflemen as skirmishers and special task troops that affected the Horse Guards thinking.   the British German Allies supplied troops to the penninsular wars but I don't know if they sent Light Infantry and JaegerKorps or not.

[Artificer]

On that day the shot was actually “too good.” If it had been off a bit to the right or left an officer  might have been hit – instead the ball passed between them.
Gary

I could not agree more that when they were serious about a long range shot, they got down in the prone position.  Gary, I definitely agree this is an important part of the account that is often looked over. 

On the actual shot: Sounds like the rifleman had the elevation judged about right, it was just the windage was off a bit.  To get the elevation that close and such a small error in windage means the rifleman had to know his rifle pretty darn well.  Since one would not do a lot of practicing at that distance and certainly not many hunting shots at that distance, this was no mean feat. 

Marines still shoot a Known Distance course involving firing at 200, 300 and 500 yards.  The 500 yard target is a head and torso sized silhouette.  If you hit the silhouette, you get the full 5 points for the shot.  Ten shots in the silhouette and you get the maximum score of 50 at the 500.  This is not done with NM rifles or NM equipment and it is done from the prone position.  My last 5 years or so of qualification, I could count on a possible of 50 points each time.  (I was not a NM shooter.)  I tied 8 other Marines for the All Time high requalification score of 249 at Quantico in 1988.  Still, had I had the modern rifle I tied the All Time Record with,  I'm not sure I could have done any better or even equaled the shot made "on the spot" by the rifleman in the original account.

Gus

[Mike R]

Another point--and I agree that 100yd 1MOA accuracy is a modern thing, typically with scope, but I have done it with peep sights and once or twice with open sights--but most period "shooting matches" were on the order of 60 yds with rest [e.g., over the log] and 35 yds offhand.  At these ranges one-hole groups were possible then and now with good rifles & loads.  Of course longer shots were taken at times, but in general our ancestors shot up close and personal.  Hunters often ran game with dogs, cornered or treed game and shot at very close range--even touching the muzzle to the side of a bear or whatever.  Warfare was often at point blank range--a matter of a few yards sometimes.  The long shots were memorialized because they were rare and exceptional.  Results [targets] I have seen published in various places [e.g., Cline, Dillon] using original rifles are impressive, as are period accounts of marksmanship.  Some of these folks "lived" with their rifles and could shoot impressively with old iron sights--my own father was an instinct shooter who demo'd frequently to me his skills with old iron-sighted rifles [which he did not use the sights on]--I never saw him miss a shot and he often "called" them.  Some old timers it is said [and I witnessed my father do it] simply brought the rifle up and fired instantly [ie, without a steady hold and aim as most are taught]. My father could drive a nail at 50 ft this way.

[northmn]

There were JaegerKorp used in the Revolution by the British, Stark pretty much decimated the German  contingents with Burgoyne before they got to Saratoga.  Most of my references stated that our rifles out distanced them.  The Jaeger rifle tended to be large bore and used a modest amount of powder with a more rainbow trajectory, or so one source stated.  It is possible that our riflemen were just more experienced at longer range shooting.  I still appreciate what Paul Matthews stated about long rang BPC shooting.  If you know the range you can set the sights for it and trajectory doesn't mean much, its the wind that really gets hard to determine.

DP

[Captchee]

Good point Artificer
 I  cant comment on  your experience . But with my own military  training . We  practice  or pull for some time with nickels balanced on the barrels. untell such time as we could  drop the bolt and the nickel stayed where placed  . Myself I had one he77 of a time doing that with the 16  but little problem  with the M 1 .
As I stated before  standing off hand  I can hit at 3X3 ft target at 300   more times then not . Rested ,   and in the prone position  I wouldn’t think  would not  be an issue .
But again , its knowing the rifle and the load .  Myself I shoot a lot . Some 25-30  + lbs of powder  a year . We also shoot  small targets . Like paper towel tubes  with quarter size dots at 50 yards , off hand


3 men and 3 horses at 400 is a big target , shooting at  them  all as one,  smacks against everything  I ever learned .
 I think its more then likely  the shooter  probably   chose his target . but was as  you stated , off on his windage .
Again though , did that mater . Nope because he probably new that  he would have hit one of them .
We simply do not know . The case could very well have been that he was  holding for windage  and possible had  Tartleton as the target . But  as others who shoot long range here can attest . Shooting across an open field , creates its own difficulties. Especially with a slow moving RB .  Even  on a dead  calm day .  The changes in the  thermals coming off the different colors of the ground  play havoc.
As such . I would lend to believe that the drift may very well have been far more then what we think .  Even though the ball made it  effectively into  such a large target ., we don’t know really how much  compensation was  originally applied  .
AS such , what may seem like  uncanny shooting . May well have been 3 ft  or more off  from the point of aim