Lifespan of a Rifle?

Well there is a lot of old information there...,

Twisted_1in66 said:

I can understand why you'd think that but the riflemen that got into the various rifle companies during the Revolutionary War (primarily from Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) were not normally "poor as dirt". Reason for that is that most of them had been longhunters, especially the ones in Virginia that I am most familiar with. They would do their "longhunting" for 6 to 9 months a year to harvest deer hides and would hunt for their own families sustenance when the season for harvesting hide closed.

Click to expand...

There were no established "season" for hide hunting. Some "long hunts" lasted a full year. There were times when the hides were thinner, but to suggest a season "closed" is to suggest there was some sort of agreement or law enforcement on hide hunting. See Sons of a Trackless Forest, by Mark Baker

Twisted_1in66 said:

There were huge numbers of deer in the eastern US then because vast populations of Native Americans had been wiped out by illnesses and diseases that they had no resistance or immunity to. Some estimates are that more than 90% of their populations died because of that. Even if that number is way out of whack, the net result was there were comparatively few people hunting deer in the 1600's because deer were a major food source for the Indians and they died. So by the 1700's there had been a major explosion in deer populations .

Click to expand...

How odd then that the Native Nations established what we call the Ohio Valley as Can-Tu-Kee, a massive game preserve, before whites made contact, and it was this area where the long hunters trespassed for hide hunting. There was no settlements there by Natives except on the Western border, which was the Mississippi River.

Twisted_1in66 said:

Longrifles in the 1700's typically cost about 1-year's wages, whereas a smoothbore fowler, like most guns used in New England, at the time cost about 1/4th of that. According to British law, every able-bodied man between the ages of 16 and about 65 had to belong to they local or county militia and had to supply their own firelock (flintlock) in good working order. Smoothbores like a fowler could be used for bird hunting with shot or deer with a lead ball, so they were the most common arm.

Click to expand...

Actually a rifled gun ran between ₤6-₤7 on the Illinois frontier in 1768, with a used rifle costing ₤3, and a "French gun" aka a fusil costing 32 shillings (₤1/12/_). (Baker) Monthly base wage for contract hunter was normally ₤4 per month, so the rifle was about 6-weeks' wages. Two month's wages would put a hunter not only into a rifle but also all the gear needed to use it and to maintain it. Common laborers were paid about half that of a hunter, so that would only be three months wages, and of course a fusil (smooth bore trade gun) was less than a month's wages, but smooth bores were a lot more expensive to shoot.

In addition, it was the colony that decided what the militia requirements were, not The Crown. Which is why Virginia's system was a mess with many men claiming to have no gun, while Maryland operated its own arsenal(s), and Pennsylvania had no militia law, and had to rely on volunteers. The men of Virginia were well armed, but admitting that meant they were subject to "call up" and 90-days service. PLUS the cost of the powder and ammo IF they got into a fight. So claiming not having gun ownership (and there was no penalty for decades for such a claim) would at least have caused The Commonwealth of VA to pay for the gun and the ammo. Maryland had high fines for those ill equipped, and would often issue a musket, cartridge box, and bayonet.

Twisted_1in66 said:

But the longrifle allowed a longhunter to kill deer at distances a smoothbores couldn't even imagine. These longhunters were quite proficient in taking deer at 200 to 250-yards. It also allowed for accurate neck and head shots at closer distances, which would result in a "prime hide" because they don't use the neck and the head in the hide. A prime hide has no bullet holes in the hide and commanded a higher selling price. There was a huge market for these deer hides in the 1700's. In fact deer hides were the 2nd largest export from the colony of Virginia to England until the beginning of the war. Tobacco was their #1 export.

We know that they were accurate out to those 200 and 250-yard distances because they had to hit a pumpkin at 200-yards to be accepted into a rifle company. If they couldn't do that, they couldn't be in the rifle company. AND, if too many of them qualified hitting a pumpkin at 200-yards, they would either move the pumpkin out to 250-yards, or depending on the time of year, replace the pumpkin at 200-yards with a smaller target such as an orange. These folks were highly skilled with their open sights (iron sights) and telescopic sights wouldn't be invented for almost another 100-years.

Click to expand...

Actually as the rifles and the riflemen were excellent shots documented out to several hundred yards, their hunting was normally done at less than 100 yards. Over the years the details of the shooting prowess has been muddled. I know if the famous documented shooting contest for VA riflemen which was to hit a "nose" drawn with charcoal forming the outline of a man's head, as a target at 200 paces, which is about 160 yards. Still an amazing feat, especially as some claim it was shot "offhand".

As for actually hunting deer, or regularly shooting past 160 yards, likely not something they often did, and it was often luck they scored a hit or a kill at such a distance. The reason we know this is physics. The rifleman is reportedly to have used a load that would "crack" when heard from a short distance by a person standing to the side. We know today this was the bullet going super sonic, 1100 fps. We also know that the extant long rifles from the 18th and pre-ACW portion of the 19th century had what we today call "low sights". Any rifle from .45-.54 that is shooting a round ball at 1200 fps, (giving them 100 fps more than the minimum to break the sound barrier) is going to experience more than a 3-foot impact drop at 200 yards, and twice that at 250 yards. They simply could not see the target if they elevated their sights high enough to compensate for that. Add 50% to the velocity, so with a muzzle velocity of 1800 fps, and the drop is still more than two feet at 200 yards and more than 4 feet at 250 yards. (Assuming a zero sight setting at 100 yards.)

Now it's true, in an open area, at a stationary target of a man sitting atop a horse, a rather large target, riflemen scored some amazing shots, but these were not documented on the first try very often, and some were from elevated positions within trees. I submit the shooters were smart when not elevated, and picked out the top of a tree behind the mounted target as an aiming point. Those elevated in trees knew they didn't need to adjust, which might explain why they went up into the trees in the first place AFTER Gen. George Morgan told them to fire at a specific officer on the British side.

OH and the telescopic sight was invented in 1776 by famous portrait painter Charles Wilson Peale. It included cross hairs, and fine adjustment via the mounting system, but it failed and was not perfected until 1835-1840 by John Chapman and Morgan James. Peale's problem was eye relief, and the rifle recoil caused the scope to give him several black eyes over the several times he tried to make it work.


LD

Smokey Plainsman said:

For how long on average were rifles used? Would it be realistic for an early 1760s era Virginia rifle to show up in use years later during the fur trade? Say 1820s-1830s?

I’ve got a Kibler Woodsrunner but don’t really know what “period” it would be correct for. Just around the time of the revolution? Or could it reasonably be assumed such guns, if well taken care of and passed down, could still be in use 50-60 years on down the line?

-Smokey

Click to expand...

It's a good question. So many got lost over time, broken beyond repair, lost in fire or floods, (just like today's awful floods down South!) Most simply "disappeared", in a sense, over time as modern guns took their place. Plus, the old-timers didn't have all the 'miracle' lubes, homemade cleaning liquids, that we see every day on this very site!Most muzzle guns today will outlast us owners!

And as to the famous shot that George Hanger wrote about, Hanger was with Tarleton and a bugler. The rifleman missed both officers and hit the bugler's horse. I doubt that was where he was aiming.

Also, I was told by a good friend and collector that on one day 11,000 guns were destroyed by Federal troupes at Charlotte, NC. He wondered how many historically significant guns were in that group.

Many years ago, while living in Wichita, KS, I was visiting with a gentleman simply known as The Colonel to all the customers of his shop called Four Flags. He said he remembered back during the Depression many muzzle loading barrels were disassembled from their stocks and used as pry bars. Similarly he also said that many ended up being scrapped during WWII scrap metal drives.

rp77469 said:

From what I have read, most of Santa Anna's troops at the Alamo were using old Brown Besses bought from various parts of the Empire as surplus. 60-80 years old at the time?

Click to expand...

The Brown Besses in use by the Mexican Centralist forces were indeed surplus but they were mostly India Pattern models produced between the 1790s and the 1830s- most were fairly new and few had seen any serious service before the Napoleonic wars. The British were not only downsizing their munitions stockpiles but also preparing to switch over to cap weapons (which would officially begin for Line Infantry in 1838) so they had little need for the piles of flintlock arms. So yes, technically the Mexican Army was using surplus Brown Besses, but very few if any were more than a few decades old at that point.
(For more on supplies, see “The Mexican National Army 1822-1852”)

Smokey Plainsman said:

For how long on average were rifles used? Would it be realistic for an early 1760s era Virginia rifle to show up in use years later during the fur trade? Say 1820s-1830s?

I’ve got a Kibler Woodsrunner but don’t really know what “period” it would be correct for. Just around the time of the revolution? Or could it reasonably be assumed such guns, if well taken care of and passed down, could still be in use 50-60 years on down the line?

-Smokey

Click to expand...

Yes they last (with quite a few notable caveats).
It is absolutely true that you see 18th century weapons in use into the mid 19th century. What’s quite a bit rarer is seeing those weapons used on the *deep* frontier, and almost unheard of to be used unaltered that late. I can’t think of any woodpatchbox rifles that get used into the 1820s from the 1760s- you do have references to rifles which had been built with sliding wood patch boxes being converted to brass patch boxes and used fairly late - there’s an example of at least one that made it to Texas and was used in the Revolution. The problem is that the guns that were on the cutting edge of the frontier from 1760 to 1820 would have long been worn out or at least had pretty major and noticeable updates (replaced locks/lock parts, added set triggers, cut down stocks/barrels). Weapons that survive the revolution and see easier lives east of the Mississippi River tend to see fewer of these drastic changes and are used fairly late in shooting matches etc etc- it’s more common to see old revolutionary war guns come back into use in areas where people didn’t really think rifles would be super necessary then are surprised by war (in the war of 1812 several east coast long rifles hop back into service; in the Texas revolution you see rifles that are 1-2 generations older being reserviced right before the war, but in both of these cases the guns had basically been sitting around with minimal use for years). The other thing is just how many more rifles exist in the 1820s- with industrialization, rifle prices were plummeting and so new rifles far outnumbered old rifles.
So would you see a 1770s style rifle at a rendezvous in 1825- highly doubt it, certainly not without major changes. Would you have seen them in Texas? A few. Overall they’re def the minority

Loyalist Dave said:

Well there is a lot of old information there...,



There were no established "season" for hide hunting. Some "long hunts" lasted a full year. There were times when the hides were thinner, but to suggest a season "closed" is to suggest there was some sort of agreement or law enforcement on hide hunting. See Sons of a Trackless Forest, by Mark Baker


How odd then that the Native Nations established what we call the Ohio Valley as Can-Tu-Kee, a massive game preserve, before whites made contact, and it was this area where the long hunters trespassed for hide hunting. There was no settlements there by Natives except on the Western border, which was the Mississippi River.



Actually a rifled gun ran between ₤6-₤7 on the Illinois frontier in 1768, with a used rifle costing ₤3, and a "French gun" aka a fusil costing 32 shillings (₤1/12/_). (Baker) Monthly base wage for contract hunter was normally ₤4 per month, so the rifle was about 6-weeks' wages. Two month's wages would put a hunter not only into a rifle but also all the gear needed to use it and to maintain it. Common laborers were paid about half that of a hunter, so that would only be three months wages, and of course a fusil (smooth bore trade gun) was less than a month's wages, but smooth bores were a lot more expensive to shoot.

In addition, it was the colony that decided what the militia requirements were, not The Crown. Which is why Virginia's system was a mess with many men claiming to have no gun, while Maryland operated its own arsenal(s), and Pennsylvania had no militia law, and had to rely on volunteers. The men of Virginia were well armed, but admitting that meant they were subject to "call up" and 90-days service. PLUS the cost of the powder and ammo IF they got into a fight. So claiming not having gun ownership (and there was no penalty for decades for such a claim) would at least have caused The Commonwealth of VA to pay for the gun and the ammo. Maryland had high fines for those ill equipped, and would often issue a musket, cartridge box, and bayonet.



Actually as the rifles and the riflemen were excellent shots documented out to several hundred yards, their hunting was normally done at less than 100 yards. Over the years the details of the shooting prowess has been muddled. I know if the famous documented shooting contest for VA riflemen which was to hit a "nose" drawn with charcoal forming the outline of a man's head, as a target at 200 paces, which is about 160 yards. Still an amazing feat, especially as some claim it was shot "offhand".

As for actually hunting deer, or regularly shooting past 160 yards, likely not something they often did, and it was often luck they scored a hit or a kill at such a distance. The reason we know this is physics. The rifleman is reportedly to have used a load that would "crack" when heard from a short distance by a person standing to the side. We know today this was the bullet going super sonic, 1100 fps. We also know that the extant long rifles from the 18th and pre-ACW portion of the 19th century had what we today call "low sights". Any rifle from .45-.54 that is shooting a round ball at 1200 fps, (giving them 100 fps more than the minimum to break the sound barrier) is going to experience more than a 3-foot impact drop at 200 yards, and twice that at 250 yards. They simply could not see the target if they elevated their sights high enough to compensate for that. Add 50% to the velocity, so with a muzzle velocity of 1800 fps, and the drop is still more than two feet at 200 yards and more than 4 feet at 250 yards. (Assuming a zero sight setting at 100 yards.)

Now it's true, in an open area, at a stationary target of a man sitting atop a horse, a rather large target, riflemen scored some amazing shots, but these were not documented on the first try very often, and some were from elevated positions within trees. I submit the shooters were smart when not elevated, and picked out the top of a tree behind the mounted target as an aiming point. Those elevated in trees knew they didn't need to adjust, which might explain why they went up into the trees in the first place AFTER Gen. George Morgan told them to fire at a specific officer on the British side.

OH and the telescopic sight was invented in 1776 by famous portrait painter Charles Wilson Peale. It included cross hairs, and fine adjustment via the mounting system, but it failed and was not perfected until 1835-1840 by John Chapman and Morgan James. Peale's problem was eye relief, and the rifle recoil caused the scope to give him several black eyes over the several times he tried to make it work.


LD

Click to expand...

I think the stories of long range hits on deer or people are very greatly exaggerated.
Contemporary colonial newspaper accounts are particularly suspect, as the publishers knew some of the British soldiers would eventually be reading those same papers.
Psychological warfare to damage enemy morale.

Just as an aside note , from Pa. longrifle language , the name "barn gun " was used to describe a somewhat used up old rifle not serviceable for a long hunt . These mostly worn out old guns were saved to kill vermin around the farm , as well as for possible protection and used to kill a farm animal for butchering. These guns were kept in an out building , or in the barn , so as to be handy when needed, instead of having to travel back to the house , then back out to where the gun is needed. In post 1800 times , our generation has been able to find the old "barn gun" , giving us an opportunity to examine them , and recreate usable copies of these valuable relics. My favorite rifle is a .40 cal. walnut stocked plain barn gun copy , using original rusty furniture found in the ashes of an old burnt down shed in northern Preston Co. W.Va.. Guessing , the old worn out "barn gun" , was set in the shed and forgotten 'til it's iron parts were recovered to be sold at a flea mkt in Pa. .

Mulemauler said:

People were VERY thrifty! Nothing useable was thrown away. I've seen many 1760's rifles with numerous upgrades done over the years...converted to percussion, barrels shortened, full stocks that had the forearm broken were shortend to half stocks and so forth. They wasted almost nothing. If it still worked they would use it.

Click to expand...

Country boy's mantra: Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do.

I still have and use a Winchester model 02 .22 that has been in our family over 100 years. Still shoots great though the rifling is becoming super faint. It has been used for training the boys in our family to shoot for 3 generations so far and the 4th is coming soon. My Grandpa told me funny stories of misadventures with my grandma trying to teach her to shoot the rifle, before they got married sometime after WW1. He used to take us kids cottontail hunting in Kansas on cold sunny days after a good snow in his 57 Chevy. He’d shoot them right in the eye with the old .22. Very good times!

cjgregory said:

I remember reading how early southern volunteers who fought at Bull Run were armed with 1803 Harper’s Ferry rifles. They were readily available and common.

Click to expand...

I had a relative who joined I company, Tenth SC Regiment 13 Aug 1861 for 12 months at White's Bridge. It was outfitted at Camp Marion near Georgetown, SC. It got to Bull Run by train on the 2nd day of battle. My best guess is that they had received 1842 Springfield smooth bore muskets.

Mina said:

I had a relative who joined I company, Tenth SC Regiment 13 Aug 1861 for 12 months at White's Bridge. It was outfitted at Camp Marion near Georgetown, SC. It got to Bull Run by train on the 2nd day of battle. My best guess is that they had received 1842 Springfield smooth bore muskets.

Click to expand...

This is highly likely. Full production of the Springfield was in full swing yet.