18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Artificer]

BTW, I don't think anyone will ever find documentation that 18th century Riflemen shot at period Dollars or Oranges. :haha:

What we DO know is they commonly blackened/charred a rived board in a fire and then slashed it with a knife or tomahawk to shoot at. The slashed area would have been an off white color target and stood out well to see and shoot at, which no doubt is why they did it.

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

The late Bob Munden easily hit playing cards at 100 yards with a 1911 and an egg with a micro .45acp.

Bob Munden was from another world. He did what cannot be done. :bow:

 

[George]

BTW, I don't think anyone will ever find documentation that 18th century Riflemen shot at period Dollars or Oranges. :haha:

Not 18th, but early 19th.

Blane, 1822-23:

"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."

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

You never fail to amaze me with the quotes you find.

Gus

 

[George]

Here's the one you were thinking about by Lee:

Letter from Colonel Lee to Colonel William Thompson during the siege of Charleston....

"It is a certain truth that the enemy entertain a most fortunate apprehension of American riflemen. It is equally certain that nothing can diminish this apprehension so infallibly as a frequent ineffectual fire. It is with some concern, therefore, that I have been informed that your men have been suffered to fire at a most preposterous distance. Upon this principle, I must entreat and insist, that you consider it as a standing order, that not a man under your command is to fire at a greater distance than one hundred and fifty yards, at the utmost; in short, they must never fire without almost a moral certainty of hitting their object. Distant firing has a doubly bad effect; it encourages the enemy, and adds to the pernicious persuasion of the American soldiers, viz; that they are no match for their antagonists at close fighting. To speak plainly, it is almost a sure method of making them cowards. Once more, I must request that a stop be put to this Childish, vicious, and scandalous practice”¦"

General Charles Lee to Colonel Thompson, Charleston, SC, June 21, 1776, quoted in Peter Force, ed. American Archives. Series 4, volume 5, 1776, Washington, DC: M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force, 1839, 99-100.

Spence

 

[George]

From _Paul Revere's Ride_, David Hackett Fischer, letter from Thomas Gage to Dartmouth, the British government's American secretary:

With startling prescience, Gage understood the form that resistance would probably take. On March 4, 1775, he wrote to Dartmouth in London, "The most natural and eligible mode of attack on the part of the people is that of detached parties of Bushmen who from their adroitness in the habitual use of the Firelock suppose themselves sure of their mark at a distance of 200 rods. [He surely meant yards.] Should hostilities unhappily commence, the first opposition would be irregular, impetuous and incessant from the numerous Bodys that would swarm to the place of action, and all actuated by an enthusiasm wild and ungovernable."

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Here's the one you were thinking about by Lee:

Spence

Spence,

Still again you do not fail to amaze with your ability to find original documentation. :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

Actually, that is a more complete quote than the ones I had before and gives a full account why the order was given to not fire beyond 150 yards.

Lee was well aware of the true capabilities of period Riflemen in combat; where lack of sufficient food and rest and stress of being shot at, their "targets" not standing still, etc., etc. - all combined to make the Riflemen less accurate than they might have been on a target range.

Further, a group of Riflemen scoring hits with almost every shot at a distance that return fire with muskets was ineffective, would have been extremely demoralizing to an enemy soldier. A modern way to say it is, "Only HITS count."

I VERY much appreciate this full and complete quote. Thank you.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

From _Paul Revere's Ride_, David Hackett Fischer, letter from Thomas Gage to Dartmouth, the British government's American secretary:

With startling prescience, Gage understood the form that resistance would probably take. On March 4, 1775, he wrote to Dartmouth in London, "The most natural and eligible mode of attack on the part of the people is that of detached parties of Bushmen who from their adroitness in the habitual use of the Firelock suppose themselves sure of their mark at a distance of 200 rods. [He surely meant yards.] Should hostilities unhappily commence, the first opposition would be irregular, impetuous and incessant from the numerous Bodys that would swarm to the place of action, and all actuated by an enthusiasm wild and ungovernable."

Spence

This is a great quote because it comes from the British. 200 yards would have been about the maximum range for American Riflemen to fire at the beginning of many battles.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Do you happen to have the quote about British Soldiers saying dusk was the best time to hunt American Riflemen?

Gus

 

[George]

Not familiar with that one. The only one I can recall regarding hunting riflemen is humorous but has nothing to do with accuracy.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
July 3, 1776
LONDON, March 29.
"It is astonishing how any man could even dream of sending cavalry to America. Only let us for a moment conceive a dragoon, with his bags, his bucket, his boots, his belts, his havresack, his cloak, his cantine, his broad sword and his carbine, galloping round a tree to catch a rifleman or an Indian! It is a cow catching a hare. The idea is laughable, if the consequences were not serious."

Spence

 

[George]

Warren Johnson's Journal: 1760-61 [Brother of Sir William Johnson.]

"January the 24th The Weather still soe cold that handling Brass, or Iron leaves a Blister on the Fingers; & in Bed People are cold even with ten Blankets on. 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. People here in general Shoot very well with Ball, but don't doe much with Shot."
******
John Dabney Shane's interview of Benjamin Stites, speaking of the Kentucky frontier in the 1790s:
"He was not more than 150 yards from the fort. Rather out of reach of gunshot at that time."
******
“The Life and times of Gen. Sam Dale, the Mississippi partisan”, by John Francis Hamtramck Claiborne:

At a council of uniformed officers during the Creek War of 1813-14:

“I was a stranger for most of the council and my appearance did not recommend me I was smoke tanned and gaunt from fatigue and protracted anxiety; 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.”
*****
THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE 3
November 17, 1775

Mr. Purdie,

I REMEMBER seeing an account of capt. Cresap's rifle company shooting at a shingle that was held in one of the men's hands, and shot through by his brother. This was mentioned to be a very extraordinary thing, as indeed it was; but it is no more than what has been frequently done by the Virginia riflemen. I have known many people do it. 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. As some proof of this, I can mention what happened a little while ago on one of the creeks near Williamsburg. A man had got into a canoe, out of a boat, upon seeing the riflemen, and was paddling off, when they hailed him. On his refusing to stop, they fired ahead of him; and the man still continuing his flight (thinking that by this time he had got out of their reach, as he has since confessed) the officer ordered his people to fire at him, which three of them did, when one shot went through the canoe, another through the man's waistcoat, brushing a button on his breast, and the third through his hat, within half an inch of his head."
*****
Travels Through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, During the Years of 1795, 1796 and 1797", by Isaac Weld, Jr.

"The best rifles are furnished with two triggers, one of which being first pulled sets the other, that is, alters the spring, so that it will yield even to the slight touch of a feather. They are also furnished with double sights along the barrel, as fine as those of a surveying instrument. 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."
******
General George Hanger to all Sportsmen, Farmers, and Gamekeepers, 1814

Hanger discusses a book, _Scloppetaria; or, Considerations on the Nature and Use of Rifle-barrel Guns...by a Corporal of Riflemen_, pseudonym of Capt. Henry Beaufoy, the first book in English about target rifle shooting, published 1808. He describes targets shown on copper-plates: “In the lower target, page 119, I find, at the distance of two hundred and fifty yards, that eight shots in twelve are concentrated in the small space of ten inches; to which I beg leave to add two more, for they are absolutely touching the edge of the ten-inch circle. This is shooting with such a degree of precision as I never saw, and I believe will be found very difficult to exceed.”

Here is the target:



Caption above says, "The Position of 12 successive Shots, out of 19 successive Hits, from a Rest at 250 Yards distance. Fired with a Rifle made by William Moore, No. n8, White Chapel."
Caption below says, "Published by T. Egerton at the Military Library, Whitehall, Sept. 1, 1808."

Spence

 

[fleener]

I think some of your examples are with a conical bullet and not with a patched round ball.

There is no doubt that with a rifle set up to shoot conicals back in the 1800's that exceptional accuracy was easily achieved. There are numerous examples. An interesting book is the Irish Riflemen in America. This book is about when they first came over for the first "world" match in NY.

Shooting at a head size target and hitting it at 200 yards is not huge feat with one of these rifles.

A few years ago at the Oakridge match at 200 yards myself and shooting partner were hitting the X so many times they simply removed the spoting disk. I ended up with a 99 6X.

Shooting at a head sized target and hitting it with great consistence at 200 yards with a round ball is do able, but like anything if you have the right equipment it makes it much easier.

The round ball rifle that I will shoot the bears with at 200 yards next week at Friendship, has a rear sight with 2 leafs. Makes it easier to shoot at that distance.

Fleener

 

[R.C.BINGAMAN]

Be aware of the man with only one rifle. :thumbsup:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

The concepts of hitting targets at 200, 300 yards or more with an open sight ml rifle is simply nonsense.

I trust you are meaning a black powder rifle of the period and not merely any military rifle at any time with open sights? OR perhaps you mean "so small a target"? If you do mean any rifle with iron sights, I regularly hit a man sized silhouette in the upper chest, at 500 yards with iron sights, with a modern rifle. I see no reason why, given the practice that I was allowed with a modern rifle, that I could not replicate that feat with my .54 rifle and it's iron sights at 300 yards.

I doubt an orange can even be seen at 200 yards.

This is a valid question. If we were to take a person who was validated at 20/20 or ever perhaps 20/18 or 20/16 vision, and do a test..., would they be able to see an orange circle of the diameter of the fruit of the same name, or a triangle drawn on a piece of paper to represent a nose?

LD

 

[BrownBear]

I doubt an orange can even be seen at 200 yards.

This is a valid question. If we were to take a person who was validated at 20/20 or ever perhaps 20/18 or 20/16 vision, and do a test..., would they be able to see an orange circle of the diameter of the fruit of the same name, or a triangle drawn on a piece of paper to represent a nose?

It would depend entirely on the background, and therefore the contrast. Even in my decrepit geezerly state I could easily see an orange at with less contrast? Ha!

Think about a nice red coat against a green meadow or forest or a blue sky.

 

[Billnpatti]

Some of what we read of the abilities of our forefathers and the guns they shot is true and some is hyperbole but one thing you pointed out was "a lifetime of shooting probably the same gun." and that is an important point. They usually could afford only one gun so they grew to know it very well. I don't remember the exact quote but it was essentially "Beware of the man who has only one gun for he probably knows how to use it." or words to that effect.

 

[BrownBear]

That's a perfect insight. We had an old character around here who has spent his life shooting a handgun (modern) he bought new in the late 1940's. Somewhere along in the 80's the front sight fell off, and he got tired of looking at the rear sight, so he took that one off too. "Can't see the sights with these old eyes anyway, so why do I need them?"

His favorite pastime was shooting matches with us young punks- we shooting whatever handgun we wanted and he his beater with no sights. Targets were charcoal briquets at any range. He'd flat pin our ears to the sides of our heads every single time.

 

[Rifleman1776]

given the practice that I was allowed with a modern rifle, that I could not replicate that feat with my .54 rifle and it's iron sights at 300 yards.

Only small argument on that. The words "given the practice" are key.
Only once have I tried to hit targets several hundreds yards away with my ml rifle. The elevation was such that aiming was impossible. What we (several of us doing it) were doing was more like launching small mortars. And, at those ranges even tiny breezes would deflect a round ball considerably.
And, I could rant on about how poorly folks estimate ranges.....but I won't. For now..... :wink:

 

[excess650]

The concepts of hitting targets at 200, 300 yards or more with an open sight ml rifle is simply nonsense. I doubt an orange can even be seen at 200 yards.

One of the guys who shot with us in years past had been in the USMC. In the spring, around the anniversary of the USMC, he would get a group of us together for "the British soldier shoot". Red B27 (?) silhouettes with white tape "sashes" were posted on the backboards at 200 and 300 yards. It was not a problem to hit the 200 yard target most times with a .50 or larger. 300 yards was a different story, however. .54, .58, and .62 were capable of hitting with the proper holdover, but maybe 1/3 shots.

Having spent quite a lot of time on numerous silhouette ranges, I can tell you it is no problem to see a clay bird on a berm at 200m and even 300m. On one range we sometimes shot at rocks on the bank at 500m (peep sights), and at another there was a bowling ball hanging at 950 yards. It was visible through peep sights if the light was right, and was shot at and hit by at least 2 different shooters (Sharps 45-70 with tang and globe sights). I KNOW because I was there.

 

[George]

I think some of your examples are with a conical bullet and not with a patched round ball.

Are you thinking of the items in that last post? The latest of those was 1808, and if anyone was shooting conicals from their flintlocks at that time It's news to me. Or maybe you are thinking of some earlier post...which one?

Spence