• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

18th Century Rifle Accuracy

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This "report" was translated into German from Russian and was published in the late 1690ies at the Russian Academy of Science.
Who invented anything is hard to research.
 
Dunno how far back the practice extends, but in more recent times the Russians were almost as bad as George Herter for "inventing" things. :wink:
 
Rifleman1776 said:
The 54 RB is Kabooom-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------flop

Maybe ye were shooting the wrong direction. :wink: :rotf:
Nah mate, the ball spends so long in the air that the slightest breeze will blow it way further than one might expect.
May be they did blow back over behind me :grin: .
O.
 
Thank you for that reference. I am adjusting my eyes to the font...........

BTW Jeff Tanner only does round ball moulds these days. I asked about a Nessler mould and was kindly directed to someone else. He does do nice round ball moulds, Just had a couple for my Indian Mutiny musket.
 
It was easy to distinguish officers in the British lines (Redcoats) because the officers wore both a gorget (typically bright gold piece) around the bottom of their neck AND they wore scarlet red jackets instead of madder-red that the common soldiers wore. If you ever attend a reenactment, you will see just how easy it is to spot the officers.

Here's a link to a shot of a British Gorget as it was worn back then. And of course it would be highly polished.

As far as Tarleton's Legion, officers wanted to be easily distinguishable from the common soldier so that everyone knew who was in charge. Whether he wore a gorget in battle, his coat had gold thread, was a brighter color, or some other distinguishing characteristic, he should have been easily distinguished within his legion. The Brits considered it terribly "ungentlemanly" to target a commissioned officer instead of the common cannon fodder soldiers.

Your image links of Tarleton do not show him wearing a gorget, but I doubt there would be any question of who he was in a battle.

One other thing about the use of "green" in the Rev war. Forest green would be an extrememly unusual color with the dyes they had available at the time. Green was typically made by dying the fabric yellow first and then over-dying it with indigo. It produced/produces a much brighter green than what you see today. It would perhaps blend-in during the early spring when new shoots and new growth takes on a much yellower green color, but outside of early Spring, not a very good camouflage.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan
 
Dan,

British Red Coated Officers had much better uniform cloth that was dyed with Cochineal and that gave the brighter colour, compared to the Madder dye used for Enlisted Uniforms. As a former Private Soldier in the Major's Coy of the 42nd Royal Highland Regiment, it was/is a huge concern that we enlisted got Madder Red for our Regimentals, as was the case for other British Infantry Enlisted Uniforms.

I am no expert on AWI British Cavalry Officers' Uniforms, but I don't know if they had gorgets at all - even for full dress? In battle uniform, the black Sword Cross belt would have interfered with wearing a gorget. The little I know or could find out about British Cavalry Units in the AWI, all their Officers wore that black Sword Cross Belt and no gorget, though I could be mistaken.

In the quote, Tarleton and Hanger had their horses standing (still) and were 400 yards from the Rifleman. That was too far away to recognize Tarleton's Face, though I don't know if he could have been recognized by something else on his Uniform or Horse equipage. I agree the Gold Lace would have been recognizable at that distance and made them out as Officers, as I noted before.

Gus
 
Dave,

I have not included the story of when British General Ross was killed during the War of 1812, even though the rifles used were essentially the same as during the AWI.

I got to thinking about that as some accounts say that the two Rifle Armed Lads who shot him, Wells and McComas, were in the trees when they shot and at least one hit General Ross. However, other accounts say they hid behind trees when they were shot, in the return fire from the British Troops. I also have never been able to find how far away the Lads were when they shot at General Ross. Do you happen to know?

There is also a lot of conflict about this shot, just like there is about Timothy Murphy, in that British Accounts also say General Ross was hit by musket fire and other differences than what is normally told in the American versions.

Gus
 
Artificer said:
ravenousfishing said:
Thanks Tenngun. I've been patiently following this thread and waiting to reply and you beat me to it. I'm sure these people saw what they say they saw. With all the millions of rounds fired its bound to have happened, and more than once.

Did they have ballistic tables back then that said x cal round ball will drop y inches at 400 yds? If so, I doubt most were familiar with them. But, if I aim halfway up the treeline and I happen to hit someone or something standing a short distance in front, I have a point of reference for the future.

How many of you that say it can't be done are willing to stand still and let me take a shot at you at 400 yds? How about a second shot? :wink:


Let's see, you will also be shooting a "period correct" flintlock rifle of .50 caliber or less without a sling, from a prone position on a place that is unfamiliar to you, like the American Rifleman, correct? No special target range, spotting scope or anything the American Rifleman did not have, correct? You also need to be in the same condition as the Rifleman most likely was, I.E. not well fed, a long time from home, probably mentally and physically tired of war, concerned about other enemies in the area as well?

How much money are you offering when you lose on the first shot? :wink:

Edited to add: How much MORE money are you offering when you miss the second shot?

Gus
I think I would be safe letting some one take shots at me from four hundred yards with a PRB maybe twice from a cr 1770s style rifle, but still would not try it, even for a fair hunk of money. After all I know about ballistics of ball, time in flight, drop, cross wind effects, my width at four hundred yards vs sight width, ect I do recall the last words of Gen. Sedgewick. "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dis....ahhhh" :wink:
 
It is very possible the rifleman taking the 400 yard shot figured or knew the group of mounted British soldiers were officers without seeing any specially-colored trim on the uniforms, or any other minute details.

Their actions alone may have given them away, such as a raising of the arms movement consistent with how someone raises a telescope up to their eye, ( officers being more likely to have telescopes than enlisted men ) body language, or the way the two officers horses were close together while a mounted third man was located some little distance behind, as a subordinate might as a matter of protocol. The officers' headgear, if having a different profile from what the enlisted men wore, may have been noticeable from a distance even greater than 400 yards.
Other possibilities include some acquaintance of the mystery rifleman or the rifleman himself having a telescope that identified some of the horsemen as officers, and my personal favorite theory that the rifleman may have not known or even cared about the ranks of the British targets, he just wanted them to go away, and took advantage of a target cluster of men and horses to take a shot at, held a few yards high, and hoped to either cause a human casualty at best, or a put a horse out of action at worst.
 
Actually, you are making my point for me. Thank you.

You do know that General Sedgwick had been warned that Confederate Sharpshooters (Snipers) had operated in that area the day before and had already killed and wounded other Union Officers? Also on the morning of the General's death, Confederate Snipers had already hit a Staff Officer and shot Brigadier General Morris off his horse in that area?

IOW, it wasn't a lone Rifleman firing for the first time or two from a spot he had never ranged or practiced from. The Confederate Snipers already had the range and had already hit other Officers in that area when Sedgwick was killed.

Gus
 
The "Dragoon Helmets" that Tarleton and Hanger wore that day were for the most part indistinguishable from the helmets of their men and at least one other British Cavalry Unit had them as well. Some American Cavalry Units had very similar ones, also.

However, you make an excellent point the Officers could have been recognized by their actions and the "Bugle-Horn Man" behind them. (I get a real kick out of that description from the quote. :grin: )

Any Cavalry Man or a small group coming out of the woods behind and taking time to look at the ground and for the Americans before them was also probably recognized as Leaders or at least gaining important information to relay back to their Commanders. So your point the Rifleman shot at them for that reason alone, is also valid. :thumbsup:

Gus
 
Gene L said:
It was worth a shot. Even a low-percentage shot. Can't hit a target at any range unless you put some lead into the air.

Don't take me wrong, even though it seems a darn safe bet it was beyond the Rifleman's ability to hit at that range, you BET it was worth a "Hope and a Prayer" try.

Gus
 
I collected most of the references I have to shooting distances most likely done with round balls. Make of them what you will.

Benjamin Stites, Shane interview, arrived 1788 “He was not more than 150 yards from the fort. Rather out of reach of gunshot at that time.”

“Border Life”, Elizabeth Perkins, Shane interview of William McBride: “Hugh Luper’s, Samuel Daviess’, General Logan’s [and] Whitley’s wives, kept rifles, and were mighty hard to beat, 100 yards.”

Gen. Sam Dale, Creek war, 1813-14 “I wore a hunting shirt of rust brown color, homespun pants, moccasins and leggings of dressed buckskin, and a bearskin cap; a belt of panther skin with my pouch and hunting knife, and a long rifle---good for a hundred yards--- completed my equipment.”

Isaac Weld, Jr, "Travels Through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, During the Years of 1795, 1796 and 1797".
“An experienced marksman, with one of these guns, will hit an object not larger than a crown piece, to a certainty, at the distance of one hundred yards.”

“A rifle gun will not carry shot, nor will it carry a ball much farther than one hundred yards with certainty."

Wm. Blane, 1822 “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.”
***************
The History and Topography of Dauphin, Cumberland, Franklin, Bedford, Adams, and Perry Counties:, by Isreal Daniel Rupp, 1846

Lancaster, 24th of April, 1756.

“To Hon. R. H. Morris, Gov.

Honored Sir:”¦ The Indians make use of rifled guns for the most part, and there is such a difference between these sort of guns, and smooth bored, that if I was in an engagement with the savages, I would sooner stand my chance with one of the former sort, which might require a minute to clean load and discharge, than be possessed with a smooth bored gun, which could discharge three times in the same space; for at 150 yards distance with the one, I can seldom or ever hit the board of two feet wide and six feet long.
I am, your Honor’s, &c.
Edward Shippen”
**********
THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE 3
November 17, 1775
“At the distance of 200 yards, two men have shot into the same hole, in a paper not bigger than a dollar; and this Mr. S. Athawes of London can attest, for he saw it done when he was in Frederick county, Virginia, and carried home with him the paper, through which it was but just discernable that two balls had passed. The riflemen now in our regiments declare, that they can hit a man every shoot if within 250 yards, and his head if within 150. “

William Duane, Handbook for Riflemen, 1812
“In this situation of the country the American revolution commenced. A foreign veteran army, led on by generals schooled in the tactics of Prussia, appeared amongst a people strangers to the concert of battalions or brigades; to whom the tactics and maneuvers of the scientific soldier, and the arts of the engineer, were alike unknown. But there was not a man in the country who could not hit a space of a foot diameter, at one hundred and fifty yards, with a single ball. The great mass of the settlers remote from cities could shoot a squirrel, and shoot it in the head from choice, and with confidence and certainty.”

“...but though there is some elevation of the rifle ball in its course, it is yet relatively so small that it is not required to aim lower than the object at any distance, though when at a considerable distance, say 500 to 700 yards, it is necessary to take a higher aim, in order to countervail the power of gravity upon the weight of the ball.”

“But some say that one third of the weight of the ball is not too much; experience shews that to shoot at 250 to 300 yards, one fourth or a fifth is enough.”

“He must be taught to fire at a target without a rest, for if he accustoms himself to make use of a support, he will rarely fire true without one; but as this method will be rendered easy by practice, he should begin by firing at fifty yards distance, and increase it by degrees to 100, 150, 200 , and 300 yards.”{

Carl P. Russel, "Firearms, Traps and Tools of the Mountain Men", 1966
Seminole war 1835.
Bosworth quotes General Gaines's report to the War Department declaring that entrenched U.S. sentries were wounded, even killed, by single shots from the Seminole rifles at 400 yards.

Warren Johnson’s journal, 1761 “They are remarkable at Philadelphia for making rifled Barrell Gunns, which throw a Ball above 300 yards, vastly well, & much better than any other Barrells.”

Scloppetaria. 1808, Colonel Mark Beaufoy, “Who, five years ago, when rifles were just coming into notice, would have credited the assertion, one telling him that, with practice, 300 yards would be an almost certain distance?"

George Hanger “They have replied, that they thought they were generally sure of splitting a man’s head at two hundred yards, for so they term their hitting the head. I have also asked several whether they could hit a man at four hundred yards,----they have replied certainly, or shoot very near him, by only aiming at the top of his head.”

“I would not give one farthing for a rifle, which would not throw a ball, to a certainty, into the space of about three or four file of men, at four hundred yards, provided the wind was not strong; and the riflemen know how to regulate their aim.”

“I do believe, that, if he shot at a man standing still, at four hundred yards, by only aiming at the man’s head, that he would drop the ball into his breast, not lower, or go so near to him as to alarm him devilishly.”

“But then I will not begin to shoot under 350 yards, and from that distance we will extend our practice to 600 yards.
Reader, do not be surprised at my speaking of 600 yards practice, __for I do not mean to say, that I can hit a horse or an elephant at that distance; but I will prove to you, that I can throw a ball into a piece of canvas six feet high by fifteen feet long; and this will prove that a ball may be thrown, at that distance, into a column of troops, on their line of march.”

And, of course, Hanger's description of the 400 yard shot at him and Tarleton.

Ezekiel Baker, REMARKS ON RIFLE GUNS, Third Edition of 1806 "I have found two hundred yards the greatest range I could fire at to any certainty. At three hundred yards I have fired very well at times when the wind has been calm. At four and five hundred yards I have frequently fired, and I have some times struck the object...."

Spence
 
Spence,

I very much appreciate you taking the time to collect and present those quotes. Thank you.

I have a question about one quote and it is listed in this section of your post above.

"William Duane, Handbook for Riflemen, 1812
“In this situation of the country the American revolution commenced. A foreign veteran army, led on by generals schooled in the tactics of Prussia, appeared amongst a people strangers to the concert of battalions or brigades; to whom the tactics and maneuvers of the scientific soldier, and the arts of the engineer, were alike unknown. But there was not a man in the country who could not hit a space of a foot diameter, at one hundred and fifty yards, with a single ball. The great mass of the settlers remote from cities could shoot a squirrel, and shoot it in the head from choice, and with confidence and certainty.”

“...but though there is some elevation of the rifle ball in its course, it is yet relatively so small that it is not required to aim lower than the object at any distance, though when at a considerable distance, say 500 to 700 yards, it is necessary to take a higher aim, in order to countervail the power of gravity upon the weight of the ball.”

“But some say that one third of the weight of the ball is not too much; experience shews that to shoot at 250 to 300 yards, one fourth or a fifth is enough.”

“He must be taught to fire at a target without a rest, for if he accustoms himself to make use of a support, he will rarely fire true without one; but as this method will be rendered easy by practice, he should begin by firing at fifty yards distance, and increase it by degrees to 100, 150, 200 , and 300 yards.”{"

First question, are all these quotes from William Duane?

Am I correct the author is talking about the powder charge for the rifles? If so and considering the weight of the .54 caliber issued rifle ball was no more than 230 grains. That means he is suggesting a powder charge of 46 grains to 58 grains?

Gus
 
Yes, all those quotations were by Duane.

Here's the entire paragraph discussing proper powder charge:

"Some hold that a quantity of powder equal to three times the full of the mould in which the ball is cast, is the proper charge; others that four times the full of the mould; on this plan a ball of twenty to the pound would be fired with nearly a fourth of the weight of the ball. But some say that one third of the weight of the ball is not too much; experience shews that to shoot at 250 to 300 yards, one fourth or a fifth is enough."

He seems to be giving a formula for the ratio of weight of powder to weight of ball, in general, not for one specific caliber. So, yes, those would be his load if speaking of a .54.

I can find nowhere in the book that he specified the caliber of rifles issued.

Here's a link to the book online:
https://play.google.com/books/read...frontcover&output=reader&hl=en_US&pg=GBS.PA97

Spence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you both for the info AND for the link.

I assumed (fully realizing what that word means and its consequences :haha: ) Duane meant a .54 caliber because he had served as the X.O. or second in command of the Rifle Regiment from 1808 until his lack of leadership skills caused him to lose that position in 1810 and was replaced by Thomas Adams Smith.

By that time and unless I'm mistaken, which I could well be, they were armed with the M1803 Harpers Ferry Rifle?

If I am not mistaken, that was a very light powder charge to do that kind of shooting out to 300 yards.

Gus
 
I think especially in the Revolution and especially with long rifles, to hit a target at 200 yards, you'd likely have to pick a spot above the target and shoot at that. Can't see the target and the sights at the same time, so you have to elevate the barrel.

The Baker rifle had longer-range sights on them, which was a good thing.
 
Gene L said:
I think especially in the Revolution and especially with long rifles, to hit a target at 200 yards, you'd likely have to pick a spot above the target and shoot at that. Can't see the target and the sights at the same time, so you have to elevate the barrel.

The Baker rifle had longer-range sights on them, which was a good thing.


If we figure that they sighted in their rifles a little high at 100 to 110 yards so as to have a "Point Blank Range" of 25 to 150 yards without having to hold high or low for elevation and figuring the drop of the ball at 200 yards, and if they aimed at the top of an enemy soldier's hat - the ball would hit down in an enemy soldier's torso between his chest and stomach. That would have been an extremely useful hit on any enemy soldier. Aiming at the top of an enemy soldier's hat would also have been an excellent small point, at which to aim at that distance.

Gus
 
Back
Top