18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[BrownBear]

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.

That's one great big glaring clue right there. Might or might not be able to see uniform details, but a handful of guys sitting idly on horses would tell me all I needed to know when everyone else is on foot.

 

[George]

Beaufroy discussed the problem in Scloppetaria, 1808. The British were using flip-up sights pre-set for distances at that time, but he explains the problem if you only have one fixed sight.

"To shoot correctly it is absolutely necessary that aim be taken at the object itself, but this is not likely to present itself constantly, excepting when shooting at an inanimate body as the target; and therefore it is the duty of every rifle shot to learn by frequent trials how to exercise his judgment as to allowance and elevation. Take now for example a government rifle with one sight only, and that point blank at 200 yards; if the distance were less, aim below the object---if greater, above it: but as the eye must be removed from the actual spot to be struck, it is liable to wander too far, and then if the distance be 300 yards, the angle of aberration will be so greatly enlarged by the time it arrives abreast of the object, that the chances are much against the ball's hitting. If however, one sight is condemned as too little, we should be sorry to see a multiplicity employed, which would tend to confuse rather than assist the operator. But supposing 300 yards to be adopted as the utmost required range, we see no objection to having two flaps, viz one filed down till point blank at the 200 or 150, and the other at the 300 yards: or if 400 be taken as the utmost, let the sights be for 250 and 400 yards."

This is of course almost 30 years after the Rebel rifleman missed Hanger.

Spence

 

[George]

After reading Hanger years ago, I figured out why that rifleman missed him. It was the wind. I know, Hanger said there was absolutely no wind, but he didn't realize that there was a perpetual hot wind around him at all times.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

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.

That's one great big glaring clue right there. Might or might not be able to see uniform details, but a handful of guys sitting idly on horses would tell me all I needed to know when everyone else is on foot.

But there were no other Enemy Soldiers the Rifleman could have clearly seen. Hanger remarked in the quote the rest of the Cavalry troops were 30 yards behind him in the woods, where they would have been concealed from the Rifleman's view.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Beaufroy discussed the problem in Scloppetaria, 1808. The British were using flip-up sights pre-set for distances at that time, but he explains the problem if you only have one fixed sight.

"To shoot correctly it is absolutely necessary that aim be taken at the object itself, but this is not likely to present itself constantly, excepting when shooting at an inanimate body as the target; and therefore it is the duty of every rifle shot to learn by frequent trials how to exercise his judgment as to allowance and elevation. Take now for example a government rifle with one sight only, and that point blank at 200 yards; if the distance were less, aim below the object---if greater, above it: but as the eye must be removed from the actual spot to be struck, it is liable to wander too far, and then if the distance be 300 yards, the angle of aberration will be so greatly enlarged by the time it arrives abreast of the object, that the chances are much against the ball's hitting. If however, one sight is condemned as too little, we should be sorry to see a multiplicity employed, which would tend to confuse rather than assist the operator. But supposing 300 yards to be adopted as the utmost required range, we see no objection to having two flaps, viz one filed down till point blank at the 200 or 150, and the other at the 300 yards: or if 400 be taken as the utmost, let the sights be for 250 and 400 yards."

This is of course almost 30 years after the Rebel rifleman missed Hanger.

Spence

That is an excellent quote on actually using the flip up sight of the Baker Rifle. Further, it can be demonstrated that it would work.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

After reading Hanger years ago, I figured out why that rifleman missed him. It was the wind. I know, Hanger said there was absolutely no wind, but he didn't realize that there was a perpetual hot wind around him at all times.

Spence

:rotf: And it is said the British have a DRY sense of humour. :rotf: :hatsoff:

Gus

 

[RAEDWALD]

Just for information here is my translation of the 'range card' that was given to French troops issued Tabatiere rifles (conversions from muskets). (The sights had settings for 200, 400 and 600 metres).

'With 200 metre set, fire at the feet at 100 metres, the knees at 150, belt at 200 and head at 250 metres.

With 400 metres set, fire at the legs at 250 metres, the belt at 400 and the top of the head (hat) at 450.

With 600 metres set, fire at the belt (in reality the centre of mass).

What you do between 450 and 600 metres is not advised and the rainbow arc makes a Baker Rifle trajectory look flat.

It finishes with the sound advice. 'Stay calm, being nervous is of no help, choose the best firing position. Fire with care and accuracy.' Native French speakers will doubtless translate it better but I have the gist.

Yes a breech loader so OT but the aiming advice is relevant to 18th century military rifle use.

 

[Zonie]

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."
...

Spence

Although his "20 to the pound..." is talking about a .615 diameter ball (349 gr), I did a bit of calculating for a .540 diameter ball just to see what powder load the 3 times or 4 times, " the full of the mould" would be.

The volume of the mold for a .540 diameter ball would be about .0856 in³

3 times that = .247 in³
4 times that = .330 in³

If powder weighs about 245 grains/in³, the powder loads he's suggesting would be from 59 to 79 grains for a .54.

I think that's interesting because my .54's shoot their best with a 60-80 grain load. :hmm:

I do agree with the others here.
A 60-80 grain powder load would be more than a bit weak for shooting much beyond 150 yards let alone a 250-300 yard shot.

 

[Artificer]

We have discussed on the forum that in the early 19th century, they seemed to have used finer grade powder than what we often use today. OK, even figuring that, I really didn’t/don’t buy the claim that Duane made about 300 yard shooting and only suggesting a powder charge of 46 grains to 58 grains in the Issue M1803 .54 cal. rifle. (I am assuming Duane meant the Model 1803 Rifle because as a Lt. Col., he was Second in Command of the U.S. Rifle Regiment from 1808 to when he was relieved in 1810 from that duty, as I later learned.) Even if we figure they were using 3 FFFg powder, that is just not going to deliver enough velocity to drive the ball fast enough to shoot as flat as Duane claimed.

Consider the information Spence so kindly provided earlier in this thread:
“.535 ball, 229.9 gr. BC=.075, MV 1760, sighted at 100 yards, trajectory is: 100 = 0, 300 = -107”

There is no way 46 grains to 58 grains of powder is going to give you that much velocity, so the drop would be even more at 300 yards. Something”¦.was”¦just”¦not”¦right.

I got curious that there was no Military Rank given for William Duane from the cover of his book, A Hand Book for Riflemen. So before Spence so kindly provided a link to the book, I began looking for Duane's rank and service.

What I hoped to have found was that he had served as a Lieutenant or Captain in one of the Rifle Regiment's Companies. This because even though they were Officers and it was unusual for Officers to have used Long Guns at the time period, it seems to have been commonplace that Company Grade Officers in the Rifle Regiment actually carried and used rifles, at least from time to time. Such an Officer would have had firsthand knowledge and experience using the Issued Army Rifle as well as knowing what the men in his Company were capable as far as accuracy. So such an Officer would have been an excellent source for information. However, it seems Duane’s credentials were not that good.

One of the first things I found was (my apology) a Wiki Article stating he had been a Printer. Was this him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Duane_(journalist)
The expanded article has some mistakes, but it seems it was him: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=31438204
This one confirmed it: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Duane, William, 1760-1835

Then I found this:
“[Thomas Adams]Smith enjoyed the support of Senator William H. Crawford and Congressman George M. Troup, both of Georgia. It is unclear whether patronage was involved but Smith, now an experienced officer, was promoted to captain in the Regiment of Riflemen on May 3, 1808. When the leadership skill of Lieutenant Colonel William Duane, proved unequal to the task of being second in command of the Regiment of Riflemen, Smith was promoted to lieutenant colonel on July 31, 1810 and replaced Duane; he was promoted over John Fuller, the major in the regiment, who left the Army.[4]:13”“23 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Adams_Smith

OK, OK, I know, you can’t just use Wiki. Next I found this:

“William Duane's "Origin of the Rifle Corps" in A Handbook for Riflemen (1812)
As with Colonel Alexander Smyth (wiki), the first Colonel of the Regiment of Riflemen, formed in 1808, Lieutenant Colonel William Duane was a Jeffersonian republican political appointee with no previous regular military service. Some additional background on his "political" and "military" career, not discussed in his wiki bio is, provided below.* He was on the US Regiment of Riflemen roll from 1808-1810 and later produced, for intended personal profit, "A Handbook for Riflemen" (1812), as well as a "Handbook for Infantry (1814)," the latter which was ultimately not accepted by the Army (although approved by Congress).” http://mymilitaryhistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/william-duanes-origin-of-rifle-corps-in.html

OK, so I don’t know and can't vouch for the author above, but at least he seems to document his research well, as shown in the link below: http://mymilitaryhistory.blogspot.com/2009/05/rifle-regiments-officer-sketches.html

The final source I found is not very charitable to Duane at all. Though I know almost nothing about, R.E. van Patten, it seems he documented the article well:
http://casebook.thewarof1812.info/Articles_files/ArmsDrill/dissertation.html

Now I earnestly hope no one thinks I’m trying to do a Hatchet Job on William Duane, but his lack of prior military experience and the fact he was not a Company Grade Officer with the Rifle Regiment, may explain some of the things he wrote that don’t make sense.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Jim,

I didn't read your post above until after I wrote and posted my post above. I was going off the weight of the ball that Duane mentioned at the end of the paragraph and for the M1803 Rifle.

Considering your calculations off the first part of Duane's quote give a little more powder, I agree that would still not give enough velocity to make a .54 cal. shoot flat enough at 300 yards to aim like Duane wrote.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I'm going a bit off topic, but your post reminded me of something from "The Blue and the Grey," the 1982 television mini-series set during TWBTS. Though the history generally was terrible and the drama not much better, it was still entertaining.

There was one huge thing that I think many people missed, though. The Union Sergeant told his men to "aim at their knee's" at the Battle of the Wilderness. I was struck that SOMEONE must have known something of period rifles, as that was pretty darn good advice, considering how their rifles were sighted to hit.

Your post reminded me of that scene.

OK, my apology for going ff , so back to the 18th century. :bow:

Gus

 

[tenngun]

With all the examples of long shots I am put in mind of jedidiah smiths first expedition to California. Crossing the Colorado near present day nedles they were forced in to a fight with the mojavies. The had to shoot across the river to cover some of his party on the other side. He called on his men to shoot at a range of 'fourty rod' . The men complained it was out of range. Smith told them just to aim high, as shot passing by would scare the mojavies and keep them back from the men on the beach.

 

[Artificer]

With all the examples of long shots I am put in mind of jedidiah smiths first expedition to California. Crossing the Colorado near present day nedles they were forced in to a fight with the mojavies. The had to shoot across the river to cover some of his party on the other side. He called on his men to shoot at a range of 'fourty rod' . The men complained it was out of range. Smith told them just to aim high, as shot passing by would scare the mojavies and keep them back from the men on the beach.

Interesting. 40 Rods was 220 yards, so that was not a terribly long shot.

Gus

 

[George]

Now I earnestly hope no one thinks I’m trying to do a Hatchet Job on William Duane, but his lack of prior military experience and the fact he was not a Company Grade Officer with the Rifle Regiment, may explain some of the things he wrote that don’t make sense.

Well, I'm not all shot through with the idea that not being a military man means anyone can't understand the game of rifle shooting. Considering some of the things we know about how officers obtained their commissions in the period, being non-military could be an advantage. Be that as it may, I don't believe I've ever read a single book by any of those old boys who exhibited any real understanding of the workings of guns of most any type, military or not. Many of them seem to have advanced very little beyond the "demon riding on the ball" theory. Beaufroy's Scloppetaria is a real mess in spite of the fact he was military, and the book is much lauded as the first book in English about target shooting, where you would expect some pretty enlightened ideas. The same is certainly true of Hanger. I don't recall the military situation of Hawker, but he was no fount of knowledge.

I put more faith in the ability of those old backwoodsmen who had spent their lives with rifle in hand to actually make the shot than in that of the experts of the day to explain what happened.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

I put faith in the backwoodsmen and their rifles for the ranges they sighted in their rifles and normally fired when hunting. That is where their lifelong knowledge and experience lay. I put faith in them beyond that range, that many could hit a man's torso most of the time at 200, thanks to their skill, experience and physics.

Beyond that range, physics and the limitations of the technology of the day began to take over.

I have faith that if and when they practiced at longer ranges during war time than they normally hunted in civilian life, their skill with rifles would have led to a fair number of hits between 200 and 250 yards. Less so between 250 and 300 yards.

Beyond 300 yards there is virtually no documentation they ever had shot that far in civilian life or most of them practiced beyond that range.

Gus

 

[George]

Gus, I'm curious about something. Do you believe it's possible to shoot useful targets at 400 yards with a typical longrifle of the revolutionary period, if said longrifle were outfitted with flip-up sights and sighted in for an extended "point blank" as described by Beaufroy above? In other words, are the rifles capable of shooting that well?

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Shooting a smoothie at fifty yards one might shoot a four inch bull. A rifle gun can clover leaf most of the time. Clover leaf with a smoothie? Sure you might pull it off. Most of the time...much of the time...some times every second blue moon if shot on a sunday?
A .62 smoothie shoots a ball about 2/3 of a square inch. A four inch bull has about fourteen square inches. Thus after about 20 shots one should put two ball through the same hole. So if one shoots there is a one in twenty chance you will get one hole from two shots. What set of shots gets remembered. How many shots hit the trees or the ground or what have you for every long shot remembered?

 

[Artificer]

Gus, I'm curious about something. Do you believe it's possible to shoot useful targets at 400 yards with a typical longrifle of the revolutionary period, if said longrifle were outfitted with flip-up sights and sighted in for an extended "point blank" as described by Beaufroy above? In other words, are the rifles capable of shooting that well?

Spence

Short answer to your question is "A Qualified No;" because of the variety of calibers, varying quality of barrels, varying quality and fit of round ball moulds, and available patch material. However, if your question is could/were SOME of the rifles in the period have been useful at 400 yards with flip up sights and zeroed for longer range, then the answer is "A Qualified Yes," but that also depends on the definition of "useful accuracy."

One thing that we know from both period documentation and modern use of the rifles is the caliber would have had to have been large enough to carry in flight and at least somewhat have been able to buck the wind. When you want further range with a round ball rifle, you have to go to at least somewhat larger calibers, so some typical 18th century rifles with smaller calibers would have failed for that reason alone. For whatever reason that we don't know, .52 caliber rifles were still somewhat popular by the AWI and .50 to .52 caliber would have been about the minimum "normal" calibers that would work at long distance. The British did not choose the caliber of the Baker rifle because it was close to their Carbine bore alone, but also because the heavier balls carried further with more accuracy than smaller caliber round balls.

We know that period rifle bores could have been held to a tolerance of .001 to .002-.003" at most. The better the bore was made with the smaller variation, the more accurate the rifle would have been at long range.

The better the fit and roundness of the ball mould to the individual rifle barrel, the more accurate the barrel would have shot at long range. We also know that some weavers could and did make very uniform thickness and weave fabric and the better it was at that, along with how well it fit the ball and bore of the rifle, the more accurate the rifle would have been at long range.

Quality of powder was often "spotty" in the 18th century, though there was some that seems to have been quite good. The better the powder, the more accurate the rifle at long range.

Then we have to consider what was "useful accuracy." Round balls are highly sensitive to cross winds at 400 yards. So hitting a single man at that range was by no means certain, especially for a first shot on unknown ground. However, if a rifleman aimed at a soldier in a battle line at that distance and hit the guy next to the one he aimed at, or even two guys away, it would have been useful accuracy.

Then we have to add in actual practice at shooting at 400 yards. Just because the rifle may be accurate enough and aided by flip up sights and a further point blank range, doesn't mean the man shooting it was, unless he practiced enough to get good at that distance.

Gus

 

[earlwb]

They did have a fair number of wall guns or large bore rifled guns back during the revolutionary war. These were typically really long and large guns with 5 to 6 foot long barrels. They were commonly a 1 inch bore to 1.25 inch bore. With those they could reliably shoot 500 yards or more with pretty good accuracy.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Why do I know an exceptionally long post was written by Artificer before I even look? :hmm: :grin: :rotf: