18th-century accuracy?

[Loyalist Dave]

the Rifleman MISSED BOTH Tarleton and Hanger and their horses!! The Rifleman's ball passed between them sitting on their horses and hit the "Bugle Horn Man's" Horse behind them.

TRUE and that unknown rifleman is thought to be the author of the phrase,

"I meant to do that."

:haha:

LD

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There is no reason to suppose our ancestors were capable of better shooting than we are today

I'd say that while their rifles were not nearly so well made, I'd say there is evidence that they were more profficient with their rifles than most of us, even those of us with equal or better vision.

Consider how good we might be, ladies and gentlemen, if we fired at a mark, standing unsupported (aka offhand), five shots, three times a week for a year. Especially if over time we increased the range so we were closer to 100-150 yards than to 50 yards? What if we averaged that amount of shooting for five years, using the same rifle?

We don't fully know, for example, the total men that arrived to try out the "audition" for the rifle company, that saw the target and the distance and didn't fire, knowing they had not the skill nor the rifle to accomplish the task. We know they filled one, or was it two, companies, and turned some men away, but I don't think they took a head count of all that showed up thinking they might give it a try.

LD

 

[Kansas Jake]

This is an interesting thread. I don't get to muzzle loading only shoots any more, but do work volunteer often at a public outdoor range on a regular basis. Most people shoot from the bench. I see very few people who could hold a 5 shot group within an inch at 100 meters of the bench let along a 5 inch group off hand with all kinds of rifles.

I see a few dedicated shooters who can shoot 1/2 inch or smaller groups at 100. Of course there are the very minority who can make one hole.

 

[timothy prouty]

WELL as old saying goes beware of a man with one gun.

 

[Artificer]

the Rifleman MISSED BOTH Tarleton and Hanger and their horses!! The Rifleman's ball passed between them sitting on their horses and hit the "Bugle Horn Man's" Horse behind them.

TRUE and that unknown rifleman is thought to be the author of the phrase,

"I meant to do that."

:haha:

LD

:rotf: That was great!

The one thing the Rifleman did accomplish (besides killing the Bugle Man's Horse) was to cause the Officers to move back, though, and that meant they could not study the disposition of the American troops. So the shot was well worth the powder and ball to shoot it.

Gus

 

[Herb]

Spence 10, they weren't shooting at a nose, they were shooting at the center of a "board of a foot square" (and with chalk drew the shape of a moderate nose in the center and nailed it up to a tree at 150 yards). A foot square target nailed to a tree is easily seen and aimed for at 150 yards. When practicing with my .50 antelope rifle I built (see the Hunting Journal), I hit a gallon milk jug easily at 175 yards, though I had a caplock and shot seated or standing with cross sticks. I also have sixty some years of age over these militia.

I have also cut strings at 100 yards from bench rest with my .54 Bridger Hawken I built. I can't see a red yarn string at 100 yards well enough to aim on, but I can hold on the middle of an 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper it was centered on. See http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showpost.php?post/1340675/

 

[George]

You are spot on, Herb. The first time I went west to hunt deer I was sure it would be long range shooting. I worked up a load and sight picture for 150 yards with my .54 caliber Hawken, and had no trouble shooting useful groups smaller than that nose target. From a rest. Of course, when I got that first shot at a mule deer it was running like the proverbial bat out of hell at 35 yards, so I never got to try my long range shot. The deer tasted fine, anyway. :grin:

Spence

 

[Nativearizonan]

The one thing the Rifleman did accomplish (besides killing the Bugle Man's Horse) was to cause the Officers to move back, though, and that meant they could not study the disposition of the American troops. So the shot was well worth the powder and ball to shoot it.

Gus

That and the fear it must have invoked in all the troops, including, and maybe especially officers. Basically, it meant that advancing to any distance short of 400 yards would have to be considered a bigger risk than it was before that shot connected.

 

[Artificer]

Well....except that Light Horse Henry Lee, himself a Virginian who was well aware of what period Riflemen could do in combat and in South Carolina in that general time period, ordered Riflemen never to shoot beyond 150 yards. This because between 20 to 25 of them had all MISSED a Fat British Major crossing a small river on horseback from much closer distance than 400 yards and the Riflemen were shooting from inside a cabin or by a split rail fence where they rested their rifles for the shots.

Have to pull out a couple of books later to look up and describe the location and more about that skirmish, later on.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

Neither of those statements really tell us anything.

No distances given. What kind of dollar? Spanish coin, or some kind of paper money bill?

 

[smoothshooter]

Agreed.

Something anywhere near a realistically-sized human nose is not visible to the naked eye at 300 yards.

While I have no doubt there were certain men, and darned few of them, who, in their prime of life ( with 20/20 vision ), could pull off some remarkable shots at times, I call BS on 90% of the contemporary accounts of precision shooting at anything beyond 150 yards that is smaller than a basketball. I do know from personal experience that someone who shoots a lot will get extremely lucky on occaision.

" Consistency " is a word that has very little application to anything manufactured by mankind up through the end of the first third of the 1800's.
Consistency is the name of the game in precision rifle marksmanship, and in the 1700's and most of the 1800's consistent-thickness patching material ( leather, cotton, linen ), bullets, bore diameters, metallurgy, and bullet molds simply were not available. Consistent burning rate powder was a constant problem as well. Add to that the fact that all but the newest barrels would have had some degree of pitting and wear from improper and infrequent cleaning.
The common practice of leaving a fouled barrel loaded for days/weeks/months didn't help either.
However, it must be said the a man and rifle with good components that can shoot into 5 Minutes of Angle: 5 inches at 100 yards, 7 1/2 inches at 150 yards, and 10 inches at 200 yards will kill a LOT of game, and in wartime is a force to be reckoned with out to 200 yards even if he only hits his mark half the time.

 

[George]

Neither of those statements really tell us anything.

No distances given. What kind of dollar? Spanish coin, or some kind of paper money bill?

Exactly. That's why I asked the question. What I'm looking for are actual period accounts of shooting by ordinary guys, accounts which do tell us something. No luck so far.

Spence

 

[Stophel]

You have to have much better than 20/20 vision for those magical long distance shots. 20/20 is simply average.

I had a LONG bout of horrendous sinus problems 5 years ago, when the pressure made it hard for me to focus my eyes on anything. When that finally subsided, my long distance vision came back, more or less, but close up never did. Before that, I was easily 20/15, and probably 20/10. I may be close to 20/15 still, long distance stuff.... but close up, within about 18", I can't see anything clearly without glasses anymore, which infuriates me. I used to be able to hold a tumbler in my fingers 8 or 10 inches from my face and see clearly to file notches. No more.

 

[smoothshooter]

Actually, we don't know how many shots each man got to take.
Maybe one, maybe two, maybe five. Who knows.

There is also the distinct possibility that the shooting results were exaggerated propaganda for the benefit of the Brits and American Tories who were known to read the same newspapers like everyone else.

 

[Pete G]

Don't forget that people then, just as today did not write about the common everyday experiences. They wrote about the extraordinary and remarkable.

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Didn't you have a quote about a Hunter from Kentucky who could hit a Silver Dollar almost every time at 100 yards from the standing/offhand position? Maybe very early 19th century at the latest?

Gus

 

[George]

Yes, that was from Blane, 1822, but was not an actual shooting event, rather an opinion expressed about the shooting abilities of an individual.

"When I was in Kentucky, a hunter offered to fire twenty times at a dollar at the distance of 100 yards, upon the condition that I should give him a dollar every time he struck it, and that he should give me one every time he missed it; but I had seen such specimens of their rifle-shooting, that I did not choose to accept his offer. Indeed I was told by several people who were present, that he was a noted shot, and would have struck the dollar almost every time."

Blane did report personally seeing something very similar at shorter distance...

"While the stage was stopping a short time in order to water the horses, and to allow the passengers to take some refreshment at a small inn on this mountain, I observed that two hunters who had just come in with some turkies they had killed, were each of them carrying one of the long heavy rifles peculiar to the Americans. As one of them, an old man, was boasting of his skill as a marksman, I offered to put up a half-dollar at a distance of fifty yards, to be his if he could hit it. Accordingly I stepped the distance, and placed the half dollar in the cleft of a small stick, which I thrust into the ground. The hunter, slowly raising his rifle, fired, and to my great astonishment struck the half dollar. This was the first specimen I had seen of the unrivalled accuracy with which the American hunter uses his rifle, and which I had afterwards still greater reason to be surprised at when in Kentucky."

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Thank you for both quotes. I didn't remember that the first quote was not actually from shooting, but it is still very interesting. The second quote stands out and I don't think I have read that one before.

I just checked to see what diameter the dollar and half dollar coins would have been in 1822 and what is neat for our purpose of looking at accuracy, is that both coins were the same size as modern coins in those denominations up through 1964 and 1971. The Half Dollar at 1.2" (a bit less than 1 1/4 inch) and the Dollar coin at 1 1/2 inch. So that gives us accuracy measurements most of us are very familiar with.

Got to go work on my truck, but will come back with more later on.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There is also the account of George Morgan having Jacob Deaverbaugh shoot at 100 yards, with a Spanish dollar won from the local British officer for each hit, and with Morgan paying the British officer one Spanish dollar for every miss... and the shooter winning all 100 dollars, and it was in the 1760's.

The target though, was a barrel head, which is a decent sized target in a hit-or-miss shooting contests. I think it was shot "offhand", but I'm not certain of that.

Current barrel heads for bourbon are 21" in diameter..., not sure of the size of the barrel back then,

LD

 

[Artificer]

OK, as of 1822 I can think of no technological advancements in making rifles over the 18th century, while assuming it was a flintlock rifle used in both cases?

The powder may or even would have been as good or better, but I don't see a improvement in the powder would make a remarkable increase in accuracy.

What is very important to my way of thinking about both of these quotes is what the rifles were capable of shooting in the hands of skilled marksmen and especially since they were "target shooting" and not during war time where they might/would have been suffering from mental or physical fatique, bad food and especially no one was shooting at them.

Now this also means the rifles were capable of shooting with BETTER accuracy, because no one can hold and shoot as accurately in the offhand/standing position as can be done from the bench.

Gus