18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[RAEDWALD]

In passing. The Baker only had 2 options for calibre as it had to use existing supplies for paper cartridges. Which you need when the enemy are close and you need rapid repeat fire. They are actually quite accurate in that 'smooth bore mode' up to 100 yards.

One was musket size and there were 'musket bore' Bakers in about .70" bore to take the .685" musket ball but they standardised on carbine bore at .615" balls. The 'forced ball' patched balls were that bit bigger to squeeze the patch into the rifling. In passing (and to differentiate target from military shooting) the 1:120 Baker twist (despite Ezekiel Baker extolling it) was less accurate than the fast German predecessors but, crucially, it fouled far less so fire could be continued longer without a cleaning pause.

In my exceedingly humble opinion the overall conclusion for 18th century rifle accuracy is that, when the distance is known and the conditions fair a good rifleman would hit at 100 yards, very often at 200 yards, sometimes at 300 yards and occasionally at 400. In the field, at only estimated ranges with adverse weather etc. usually at 100 yards, quite often at 200 yards, occasionally at 300 and beyond that is a matter of serendipity.

BTW. With smaller balls (say .45") a look at external ballistics programs show you how little energy is left to them after 300 yards (not that I want to be hit by one at 300+ yards). 'Spent' musket balls still have worrying amounts of energy left at 600 yards.

 

[tenngun]

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

A sound bite ain't an explanation

 

[Artificer]

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.

Exactly right. Wall guns also normally had a pintle attached to the stock to help keep the gun steady when aimed. These guns were used as light artillery and were also intended to be used against troop formations or even against field mortars or cannon within their range.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The biggest problems when firing beyond 300 yards over unknown ground were/are bullet drop, estimating wind deflection and estimating range, even when one already has a very good rifle.

As stated before, with a .50 caliber typical American rifle that Spence kindly showed the bullet drop chart, the ball drops a further 20 plus feet between 300 and 400 yards. Though it probably does not drop exactly 5 feet every 25 yards beyond 300, it still will drop enough to completely miss a man's vitals every 25 yards. So range estimation was downright crucial.

Such range estimation was possible in a Defensive Position like a Fort where ranging points or even aiming stakes could have been laid out ahead of time using surveyor’s chains, but to my knowledge, there was nothing anywhere near accurate enough to estimate range every 25 yards beyond 300 yards and be used by a Rifleman.

I'm sure one could work out a wind deflection table using range flags and a standard load by doing a lot of practice in various wind conditions. But it takes a lot of practice to figure it out by other methods and use other things to estimate wind deflection in the field. This is why shooting at a formation would greatly enhance being able to hit between 300 and 400 yards.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

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

A sound bite ain't an explanation

Thank you.

Gus

 

[George]

As stated before, with a .50 caliber typical American rifle that Spence kindly showed the bullet drop chart, the ball drops a further 20 plus feet between 300 and 400 yards.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that several things would change the trajectory from the one I provided. First of all, my rifle is sighted in for modern conditions of hunting game, not people. It's sighted for 100 yards and you don't want me shooting at you at 150. However, if it were sighted for 200 or more, that would be a very different ball game, and the apparent drop would seem much less.

I suspect any AWI era sharpshooter had tricks up their sleeve which never made it into print.

Spence

 

[hanshi]

FWIW: My knowledge of the subject is scant but please bear with me. This is NOT directed to anyone in particular.

I can tell everyone that a miss, as long as you are aware of it, will certainly, absolutely and without doubt GET YOUR ATTENTION! And a good "wing" is as good as a kill. Back in the military training days (young eyes) I had no problem hitting torso targets standing, offhand at 300 yards - M14, NOT a muzzleloader. Good shooting, within reason, is possible. At least some South Vietnamese soldiers were trained to shoot low, too.

Most of us know, and sometimes shoot, with heavier charges for longer ranges, 100yds and over. My normal hunting charges are for 50-60 yards. But when I shoot at 100yds I use a different, heavier charge. That relieves me from the task of "Kentucky elevation".

This post is only intended as an "aside" comment on a few statements in the thread. It cost me nothing to write and has the same value when read.

 

[54ball]

Spence,
I found this out doing research for 1812 era militia riflemen "Tennessee Volunteers"...anyway, Duane's Handbook for riflemen is nearly a word for word copy of the British Rifle Corps manual from 1803.
Link British rifle and light infantry
Duane only added the "Indian File" and the frontier tales.

BTW,
My limited research concluded there was no standard for rifle militia troops. I so far have concluded that these companies used a mixture of basic standard drill adapted to the rifle, Indian fighting experience, Biblical and classical strategy along with life experience like hunting or previous military experience. Sorta.....common sense stuff.

 

[Artificer]

I can tell everyone that a miss, as long as you are aware of it, will certainly, absolutely and without doubt GET YOUR ATTENTION!

Absofreakinglutely! Wakes you up a lot faster than even a cup of Navy Mid Watch coffee in the morning. :haha:

And a good "wing" is as good as a kill.

In a military situation, You betcha!

Back in the military training days (young eyes) I had no problem hitting torso targets standing, offhand at 300 yards - M14, NOT a muzzleloader. Good shooting, within reason, is possible.

It wasn’t just the fact it was a modern rifle that shoots much flatter and deflects wind better than a PRB. It was also because of the excellent adjustable rear sight and aperture that were not available on 18th century rifles. You also had to get the sights set properly ahead of time, to be able to do that. Oh, I don’t doubt at all that was possible, BTW, from my own experience.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Very interesting read. Thank you.

I noted this manual did not go into the style of aiming and powder charges that are found so wanting in Duane's manual.

It also stressed a lot of practice, especially for new recruits, but also for the other riflemen as well.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Most of us know, and sometimes shoot, with heavier charges for longer ranges, 100yds and over. My normal hunting charges are for 50-60 yards. But when I shoot at 100yds I use a different, heavier charge. That relieves me from the task of "Kentucky elevation".

I wanted to separate this part out, because I think it especially important.

I imagine that heavier charge was also one you found gave the best accuracy at longer range?

I think some people think or believe that for longer range shooting, one just kept adding more powder and expects the rifle to group the same with every increase in powder. When in fact too much powder is going to cause the groups to open up and be less accurate.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

And too, a .50 fired at 2200 fps will slow to 3-400 fps at three hundred yards. Fired at 1100 fps the ball will slow to between 3&400 fps. Even at one hunndred yards a 2200 fps ball will slow to 1100 fps. A 1100 fps ball will slow to 800 fps. Big charges don't buy you much after fifty yards,

 

[George]

And too, a .50 fired at 2200 fps will slow to 3-400 fps at three hundred yards. Fired at 1100 fps the ball will slow to between 3&400 fps. Even at one hunndred yards a 2200 fps ball will slow to 1100 fps. A 1100 fps ball will slow to 800 fps. Big charges don't buy you much after fifty yards,

In early 18th century Benjamin Robins did a series of experiments to study what we today call the Magnus effect, the curvature of the flight of a ball caused by spin. He fired his 12 gauge smoothbore at 760 yards, many times. Do you suppose those balls were flying back towards the gun by the time they reached the target?

Spence

 

[Gene L]

I may be wrong, but I assumed American rifles in the WoI were hunting rifles. With that in mind, I think they were probably sighted in for hunting ranges, which East of the Mississippi would be short range.

I'll draw a parallel here...a 30-30 rifle, which has a lot better ballistics, is around here with iron sights zeroed in for maybe 100 yards, or 150. Past that range, with iron sights, it's not very practical and not necessary.

While it's possible to hit a man sized target at longer range with a 30-30, probably 400 yards or more, it becomes an experiment in possibilities rather than having a use in the real world. And that's with adjustable sights. With fixed sights, it's hardly worth cleaning your rifle to take a shot.

But as I said before, it's worth a try, especially when getting shot in return with a Brown Bess is pretty much out of the question.

 

[tenngun]

:haha: :hatsoff:

 

[Artificer]

As stated before, with a .50 caliber typical American rifle that Spence kindly showed the bullet drop chart, the ball drops a further 20 plus feet between 300 and 400 yards.

I'm surprised no one has pointed out that several things would change the trajectory from the one I provided. First of all, my rifle is sighted in for modern conditions of hunting game, not people. It's sighted for 100 yards and you don't want me shooting at you at 150. However, if it were sighted for 200 or more, that would be a very different ball game, and the apparent drop would seem much less.

I suspect any AWI era sharpshooter had tricks up their sleeve which never made it into print.

Spence

Had they had taller sights as we do on many of our rifles today, this would have been a viable option.

Earlier on in the thread I talked about the possibility of cutting down the front sights to increase range, but there seems to have been no documentation it was ever done. Also with many of the front sights having been so short, there was not much "filing down" one could have done with them anyway.

An Artificer or if a local blacksmith or gunsmith was close by, could weld or braze more metal on top of the rear sight or make new sights for rifles that would allow sighting in at longer ranges, but once again a lack of documentation. Not even a single mention.

Finally, had they made such modifications, then there would no doubt be some reference either to the modifications or them hitting more often at longer ranges than they did.

It seems they used their rifles with the sights they normally used and sighted as they normally did when hunting before the War.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

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

I agree it would not take a military man to understand rifle use and tactics. However, along with the fact that Duane seems to have had no notable experience with rifles before he was appointed as an Officer in the Rifle Regiment, and thanks to 54Ball it seems he plagiarized much of his A Handbook for Riflemen, it now seems clear he did not know what he was talking about with some of his suggestions on sighting and powder charges.

Gus

 

[George]

An Artificer or if a local blacksmith or gunsmith was close by, could weld or braze more metal on top of the rear sight or make new sights for rifles that would allow sighting in at longer ranges, but once again a lack of documentation. Not even a single mention.

Finally, had they made such modifications, then there would no doubt be some reference either to the modifications or them hitting more often at longer ranges than they did.

It seems they used their rifles with the sights they normally used and sighted as they normally did when hunting before the War.

Ummmm...Gus, you do realize they didn't write down everything they did, don't you? :wink:

Ever see the movie, The Mountain Men? Henry Frapp had some wise things to say about 'assumptin'. :grin:

Spence

 

[Artificer]

I do realize they did not write down everything, but it seems if all of a sudden they began hitting more readily at 300 or more yards, it would have been noteworthy and written about, even by the British.

Yet we DO have documentation that in the War, Riflemen were ordered to fire no further than 150 yards. Had such modifications been made, there would have been no reason for that. There is also the episode where many shots were fired at that range in Carolina late in the War and the British Officer was not hit.

Gus

 

[George]

I guess the dummy who shot at Hanger didn't get the note about not shooting beyond 150 yards. I'll bet he got KP.

Spence