18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Artificer]

Like Tenngun mentioned, many/most of the original front sights found on rifles are only 1/8" tall or less. Some documentation says that was the common front sight height as well. Not sure if that would equal the height of a man at 200 yards?

Another reason I gave up on the speculation of filing original sights so they were zero'd at longer ranges was I did not think there was enough height of the front sight to do it effectively and still have any front sight left?

However, I have not been able to test these ideas.

So I would be extremely interested in you testing the theories to see if there is any merit in them.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

You might be surprised you could see a man sized silhouette well enough to shoot at 500 yards, let alone 400 yards.

For many years, the Marine Corps has had a man sized silhouette we shoot at 500 yards that is 40" from the top of the head to the bottom of the silhouette and 20" wide at the shoulders. A hit anywhere on the silhouette is a full value "5" Bullseye. I learned to use the base of the neck as the aiming point and could easily keep each of the 10, prone, slow fire shots in the middle to upper half of the silhouette (not counting the head) at that range and I was never good enough to shoot National Match due to my astigmatism. Now of course the suppository guns we used had adjustable sights that allowed that kind of shooting without holding off, but it was not a problem to see and hit it at 500 yards.

So I have no doubt in the 18th century that seeing a man at 400 yards for someone with good vision was not a problem. The problem was trying to hit him with the trajectory of a PRB and period sights.

Gus

 

[azmntman]

or another more likely problem would be the sight itself fully covering the target...thats what I meant. I would bet I could shoot a cf with the "proper" sights well enough to smak a guy after a bit of practice. I dont think I have ever shot (for practice) further than 10 yds with any of my BP guns

ff My ol man was in WWII and at boot camp was severely chastised for his failure to adjust the sights the "US govt spent millions perfecting". He simply was using KY windage and scored perfect. LOL. When he shot his buffalo at Raymond ranch (ya have to "sight in" with a warden") he hit 2" off a 5" bull standing at 100 yds with his .58! Guy was impressed fer sure, said he was the first they knew of at Raymond to take a buffalo with BP.

 

[Artificer]

OK, sorry, I now see what you meant. Even if one used part of the barrel behind the front sight to align with the rear sight and the enemy on top of the front sight, it still would have been a very difficult shot to align and make, especially on the first shot. It also would have been more difficult on a follow up shot if one did not have a "spotter," who was outside the cloud of the shooter's smoke, to see where the shot hit.

It seems Dan Morgan had his riflemen shoot in groups at Saratoga and though the documentation doesn't mention it, I believe they acted like spotters for other shooters, when they were not shooting.

Gus

 

[azmntman]

I'd certainly need a spotter (scope that is :rotf: )

 

[Artificer]

:haha: Yeah, I know what you mean. I would never have made a good period Rifleman, because my uncorrected vision and astigmatism probably would have kept me from being one.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

I'll tell you.... From our dinking around at longer ranges, unless you have dust, bare wet dirt or water, there's just no seeing impacts- even with a spotting scope.

 

[George]

A good clue would be if a horse falls down.

Spence

 

[Semisane]

A good clue would be if a horse falls down.

Spence

:haha: :haha: :haha: :hatsoff:

 

[MountainRanger]

Well, my hat is off to those guys regardless of how many times they might have hit their target at 300 or 400 yards. These days, I can barely see a target at 100 yards, let alone 300 or 400.

There was a day, once upon a time, in the lovely vacation spot of Viet Nam, Republic of... :haha:

 

[Artificer]

I'll tell you.... From our dinking around at longer ranges, unless you have dust, bare wet dirt or water, there's just no seeing impacts- even with a spotting scope.

That is an important point. There were times that even a close miss could not be recognized and especially at longer ranges. If a Rifleman could not see where his missed shot landed, he would not have been able to properly adjust for a follow up shot.

Even though the "Bugle Man's Horse" was hit behind Hanger and Tarleton, it seems that knowledge did the Rifleman no good for a follow up shot. Maybe or even probably because "there was not a breath of wind" that day, the black powder smoke from his first shot was not blown clear by the wind and kept him from seeing the wounded horse at first. It seems while the Rifleman was reloading; Hanger, Tarleton and the Bugle Horn Man moved off before a second shot was possible?

Modern Sniper Instruction is very derisive of a sniper getting up in a tree to make a shot and has great contempt for early Snipers having sometimes done it. I had more than one discussion about this with the Instructors at the Scout Sniper Instructor's Course Academy. While I fully agreed that with modern rifles it was the last thing a Sniper wanted to do, there were good reasons for it having sometimes been done in 18th/19th century warfare right up through the Civil War. Some of those reasons were:

1. Riflemen could better see who they were trying to shoot at above the clouds of smoke from the enemy’s volley firing and the firing of their allied Patriot Soldiers. This is not normally a concern with smokeless powder in modern times.

2. Senior Enemy Officers, the PRIME targets for Riflemen, were usually behind the front ranks of the Enemy Soldiers. Though they were sometimes to often on horseback, it was easier to see and hit them when shooting from higher up.

3. This is perhaps the most important reason and something most of us might not think about. When firing from an elevated position, they were more likely to see a missed shot that hit the ground around or behind the person they were shooting at. That way they could adjust their aim and “walk their shots” into the enemy soldiers. It was/is much more difficult, to nigh onto impossible at times, to see where a missed shot landed when the enemy is near or at the same level of ground the Riflemen were on.

4. Even if the Rifleman in the tree missed his shot, he could have acted as a Spotter for the other Riflemen and told them where their missed shots were landing.

Now of course even in the 18th century, it was not a good idea to get up in a tree if enemy cavalry were operating close by and the Riflemen did not have Light Infantry Support to protect them. Or, if there were no trees to get up into at a battlefield, this tactic would not work.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

I recall reading that Japanese snipers in Pacific island battles wired themselves into trees. Didn't seem to work too well from them by all accounts. Initial successes, but then payment. Of course, pretty fanatical soldiers too.

In our limited shooting, the role of spotters was critical. With the time of flight at distance combined with the expanding smoke cloud, you'd sure want your spotter well to the side.... And upwind!

 

[Artificer]

In our limited shooting, the role of spotters was critical. With the time of flight at distance combined with the expanding smoke cloud, you'd sure want your spotter well to the side.... And upwind!

I don't doubt that at all.

This makes it more clear why Dan Morgan had his Riflemen operate in small groups at Saratoga. While some were not shooting or reloading, and being most likely a bit spread out, they could act as spotters for the other Riflemen when they shot.

Of course Riflemen acting in small groups at Saratoga may or probably was the early beginnings of what came to be known as "Companions in Battle" by the UnCivil War. This meant Skirmishers were to act in groups of four in a Skirmish line ahead of the main lines of Infantry.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

You might be surprised you could see a man sized silhouette well enough to shoot at 500 yards, let alone 400 yards.

For many years, the Marine Corps has had a man sized silhouette we shoot at 500 yards that is 40" from the top of the head to the bottom of the silhouette and 20" wide at the shoulders. A hit anywhere on the silhouette is a full value "5" Bullseye. I learned to use the base of the neck as the aiming point and could easily keep each of the 10, prone, slow fire shots in the middle to upper half of the silhouette (not counting the head) at that range and I was never good enough to shoot National Match due to my astigmatism. Now of course the suppository guns we used had adjustable sights that allowed that kind of shooting without holding off, but it was not a problem to see and hit it at 500 yards.

So I have no doubt in the 18th century that seeing a man at 400 yards for someone with good vision was not a problem. The problem was trying to hit him with the trajectory of a PRB and period sights.

Gus

This was a range, shooting a bullet that was light years ahead of a PRB. Open country full of cleared fields, wood lots pastures and in the AWI virgin woodslands would offer few vistas that would give a shooter a clear lane of fire.
We talk about a six foot high target, when in truth the bottom two feet would be hidden by the lay of the land.
In the navy they told us from the sail of a submarine (conning tower) the horizine was about three and a half miles away. In the Indian ocean we ran on the surface, and much of the time the horizine wasn't fifty feet away.

 

[Artificer]

The silhouette mentioned is the size of the top of the man's head to his knee's. So even if an enemy was standing in a field of rather tall grass or other vegetation, most or all of this same body area would have been seen by period Riflemen at 400 yards. If the grass/vegetation was taller, you could still see enough to shoot at and have it land in that area of his body.

Not sure what you trying to say about the Sub's Sail and the horizon?

Gus

 

[tecum-tha]

When someone shoots at 130+ yards, there is no way for you to see where your shot missed unless it hits someone else in relationship to your intended target. Especially when the vegetation is slightly higher than mowed grass.
I just came back from the NMLRA Spring National Shoot and there are some matches which simulate further shots. One new trial match was the Ephraim Brank match at the British soldier upper body silhouette that is normally used for the widowmaker smoothbore match. It was set at approx. 130 yards and needed to be shot offhand. The size of the target simulated a distance of 200 yards.
Someone shot a 38 out of a 50, which is very good. Another one in the group shooting parallel with me shot a 26 and had 4 hits.
I shot a 6 which was the guts of the silhouette.
The rest of my shots must have gone low or too high. If you shoot far, you need to know the trajectory of your rifle ball.
This match was shot offhand and was 5 shots with no time limit.
There were different tactics applied: One shooter shot a much higher powder charge while I tried to adjust my sight picture. Unfortunately the target cardboard was rather small and I did not see if the other shots went high or low. Definitely something to try more often....
Another question is, if really a round ball was used for these further shots, as a hollow base projectile was used in Jaeger rifles before 1700 and is documented in a translation of a document from Russian into German in 1735.

 

[tenngun]

The statement about the subs sail was related too the idea that even so under fine conditions you can see three and a half miles at sea from a subs sail in the real world at seagoing probably can't.
Here in the ozarks the terrain is rough enough that three hundred yards from any given point a man even standing in the open will likely be hidden.
I was rabbit hunting on Wyoming plains and could see miles in every direction of flat open plains. Was started by a deer that leaped out of a hidden defile not thirty yards from me the I couldn't see.
Even bright red fades to gray green in the backdrop of woods.
Three hundred yard shooting at a target half hidden by terrine aiming at an imaginary point twenty feet above the target and expecting the target to stand still for the second and a half the ball is in flight buffeted by any cross wind....hummm.

 

[Artificer]

OK, now I see what you mean.

Yes, I have no doubt that American Riflemen could not see an enemy soldier, at times at 300 yards or more, due to vegetation or other objects blocking their view. But when the view was not blocked, someone with good eyes could have at least seen them and easily recognized them as soldiers, due to the uniforms and equipment. Yet recognizing them and hitting them was different.

Add that to tecum-tha's point on how it would be almost impossible to see where a missed shot went in grass or other vegetated areas at distance and when the Riflemen were on level ground, it makes such long shots more problematic.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

I have a lot of experience shooting on snow. That can be a real bugger, especially with white smoke on white snow. Snow also cobbles up your distance estimating because you lose so much "detail" in the intervening terrain.

I'll leave out a bunch of details since it wasn't a muzzleloader, but need to outline it to help emphasize that last point. Took a longer shot at a deer on a snowy hillside and it didn't even react. Figured I must have underestimated the range so held over and tried again. Perfect head shot-right where the crosshairs were pointing. Turns out I just made a bum shot the first time around, and "holding over" resulted in a lucky shot. Eyes said it was maybe 400 yards. Feet said it was 150 yards.

 

[George]

Even bright red fades to gray green in the backdrop of woods.

Hanger and Tarleton were a part of the British Legion at that time, and their uniform was forest green and black. So, you have three green soldiers on three brown horses standing close together just outside the edge of woods, creating a green background. Two of the horses and men facing head on, the third filling the narrow gap between them and close behind.

If you think a bit about what that looked like to the Rebel soldier at 400 yards, and then think where his ball hit, you could reasonably conclude he aimed at center mass and hit center mass, first shot out of the gate.

Done on purpose or a lucky shot? Can't tell at this late date, if you use only the few facts available. I for one think Hanger was telling the story as it happened, as he saw it, and he was rightfully impressed.

Spence