18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Artificer]

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.

This quote has been attributed to numerous people. I remember it as a favorite of Elmer Keith, but I think it was anonymous. Jeff Cooper used it as well, but said it was anonymous. I think Bill Jordan used it a few times as well.

I have no doubt a Rifleman in the period usually knew his rifle and where it hit extremely well, but (and this is a huge but) it would have been within the range he normally shot. Going beyond that range and especially with the drop of the bullet and ease of the wind affecting the round ball, things were no longer so certain.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Thanks for looking. It was about British Soldiers hunting Riflemen at dusk when their rifles were not as effective and the British Bayonets were. Hope to find it.

Gus

 

[hanshi]

AMEN!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It would depend entirely on the background

Well we have noted a background.... a white piece of paper and a "nose" [triangle]

Riflemand1776 wrote:
And, I could rant on about how poorly folks estimate ranges.....but I won't. For now.....

Again, no argument there, but that's a judgement about folks not normally used to judging unknown distances. Folks who have been doing it for a while on the other hand...., so are amazingly close.

There is this from my past:
"When looking over an unknown distance where the interval between the shooter and the target is visible, the shooter tends to over estimate the range; when looking over an unknown distance where the interval between the shooter and the target is not visible, the shooter tends to under estimate the range." Marine Corps Marksmanship Training c. 1980's

excess650 wrote:
I can tell you it is no problem to see a clay bird on a berm at 200m and even 300m

That is quite true, and I too am experienced with USMC qualifying at ranges to 500 yards. In fact I did a test firing of the first "carbine" M16's in 1988 for 2nd Recon..., but that's another story...a clay bird is a bit large and essentially a flat target when it comes to lighting. Take an orange sphere such as an orange or a rubber ball [orange sized] down range and unless the light is directly from behind the shooter, the illuminated part of the target [that which is seen] is much smaller and not round at 200 yards :shocked2:

LD

 

[bender20]

It is also a lot harder to estimate ranges at dusk. I missed a doe last year in archery because I thought it was a 30 yard shot. After I missed I stepped it off to 17 yards. I'm usually pretty good at ranging out to 50 yards or so but the shadows made is drastically harder. Things looked smaller in the low light.

 

[Artificer]

It is also a lot harder to estimate ranges at dusk. I missed a doe last year in archery because I thought it was a 30 yard shot. After I missed I stepped it off to 17 yards. I'm usually pretty good at ranging out to 50 yards or so but the shadows made is drastically harder. Things looked smaller in the low light.

Good point. The fading light also took away the long range advantage the Riflemen enjoyed during full daylight.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Did the American Riflemen get better at long range shooting as the war progressed? I think that likely, if not probable for the most part.

However, here is perhaps the most embarrassing account of the accuracy of Riflemen I have so far seen. The following is a combined synopsis of a fair number of accounts of the battle/skirmish.

It was at the Battle of Weitzel’s Mill in North Carolina on March 6, 1781. Part of the Patriot Army “Rear Guard” was under Col. Otho Holland Williams, who replaced Gen. Morgan after he took leave to recover from chronic rheumatism. Under Williams was Lt. Col Henry “Light Horse Harry” Lee and Lee’s Legion and some other Riflemen and Militia. Since Cornwallis was rapidly advancing, Col. Williams was trying to link up his forces with General Nathaniel Greene.

Part of the forces that were to cover the Army’s retreat and slow the British advance was a group of 25 Riflemen from Virginia, who were posted to help oppose/slow down the British advance across the Reedy Fork River/Creek on the South Bank. This while other Patriot forces were stationed to slow the British Advance in other nearby/supporting positions. At this point, there seems to have been a rather wide variety of accounts on the story.

Some accounts say that Light Horse Harry Lee ordered them in that position, while other sources say it was Col. Williams, the overall Commander. Lee may have ordered it from Williams’ direct order or may have chosen the spot for these riflemen, himself. Some accounts say the Riflemen were stationed behind a split rail fence while other accounts say they were in a good sized log building that had not yet been chinked. Whichever was the case, it seems the Riflemen had a good rest for their rifles to steady their aim. Accounts differ how far away the Riflemen were from the advancing British between 100 to no more than 150 yards away. What happened next is pretty much the same in all the accounts.

Cornwallis ordered British Lt. Col. James Webster to quickly advance and chase away the Rebel forces, so the rest of the British Army would not be under fire as they crossed. Some of Webster’s troops were reluctant to cross under fire, so Webster rode out ahead and slowly crossed the river/creek to inspire his own troops. Some accounts even mention Webster was a “portly fellowe.” (Maybe he did not know how to swim and rode slowly so as not to fall off and drown? However, this is only conjecture.) At that point, some accounts say Lee gave the order to fire on the British Lt. Col. Webster and other accounts say others did. What happened next is pretty much the same in all accounts.

As the “portly” Lt. Col. Webster was slowly crossing the stream, the group of 25 riflemen between 100 and 150 yards away, fired a total of 32 balls at him. Some accounts say it was a ragged volley with some of the men reloading and other accounts say the men fired individually. However, not a single ball touched that British Officer!! This group of Riflemen then quickly retreated.

32 balls fired at a single British Officer who was slowly crossing a stream and well within the Riflemen’s Range without a single shot hitting, did not say much for their accuracy that day. However, to be fair, they may have had the REST of the British Forces following the Portly Lt. Col. On their minds and worried what would happen to them after they fired.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

Any word of harassing fire or volley fire from the British troops watching all this? Even at 150 yards, some of the 75 caliber balls in a volley would have come close enough to affect aim.

 

[George]

As the “portly” Lt. Col. Webster was slowly crossing the stream, the group of 25 riflemen between 100 and 150 yards away, fired a total of 32 balls at him.

In all those varied, possible, contradictory and hearsay versions of the incident, did anyone record who it was that actually counted the balls fired at the fat officer? Thirty-two, not 31 or 33. That was one cool dude, he deserves a medal, at the very least.

Spence

 

[azmntman]

I believe they simply counted the balls remaining and subtracted from what they started with. It was 32 fer sure :slap:

 

[SgtErv]

IMO, therein lies the biggest grain of salt in the entire claim to accuracy at such distances: the effects of combat. Laying down harassing fire on an enemy force is a much different animal than shooting at an orange for fun or sport.

Granted, there are some stout hearted fellows both then and now who are fairly cool under fire. Still...adrenaline is what it is. Heart rate increases, limbs are pumped full of hormones to enable fight or flight, and one's mind plays all sorts of tricks. None of these are conducive to precision shooting. Granted, training plays an important role in mitigating some of this, but not all of it.

A cousin to these effects would be what's called 'buck fever.'

Now...they could have certainly scared the opposing force enough to be effective. Even without a British Infantryman's nose being shot off, he and his buddies would still be feeling the heat, as it were, at greater distance than Americans armed with standard period muskets. That matters, too. Often times the goal even in modern tactics isn't necessarily to make hits, but put enough fire toward the enemy that it makes them think twice before advancing

 

[Artificer]

Any word of harassing fire or volley fire from the British troops watching all this? Even at 150 yards, some of the 75 caliber balls in a volley would have come close enough to affect aim.

Great question. To my knowledge, I have never seen that mentioned if the Riflemen were under fire in the accounts I have read.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

As the “portly” Lt. Col. Webster was slowly crossing the stream, the group of 25 riflemen between 100 and 150 yards away, fired a total of 32 balls at him.

In all those varied, possible, contradictory and hearsay versions of the incident, did anyone record who it was that actually counted the balls fired at the fat officer? Thirty-two, not 31 or 33. That was one cool dude, he deserves a medal, at the very least.

Spence

Great question and one I have often contemplated myself. If as the accounts mention it was 32 shots, that meant at least 7 of the Riflemen ALSO reloaded and fired a second time at the British Officer.

Gus

P.S. Battlefield accounts are often contradictory even when everyone is giving their account to their best recollection and belief.

 

[Artificer]

Exactly right as to how so often target range accuracy usually does not transfer over to combat accuracy.

Gus

 

[George]

P.S. Battlefield accounts are often contradictory even when everyone is giving their account to their best recollection and belief.

So, when we eliminate all the conflicting portions we can be reasonably assured that some soldiers, possibly British, once crossed a river, and they may have had a portly officer with them. Shots were heard. :haha: :haha:

Someone needs to write a book, The History of History.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

It was not just a story.

It seems that a lot of the specific information on the battle came from a letter dated 8 Aug 1781 from Col. William Davies to Gov. Thomas Nelson (4th Governor of Virginia; In office June 12, 1781 ”“ November 22, 1781) ordering a court martial to sit in Botetourt County to determine amount of credit for a specific tour of militia duty.

Many of the accounts I have read did not mention that, though.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

As the “portly” Lt. Col. Webster was slowly crossing the stream, the group of 25 riflemen between 100 and 150 yards away, fired a total of 32 balls at him. Some accounts say it was a ragged volley with some of the men reloading and other accounts say the men fired individually. However, not a single ball touched that British Officer!! This group of Riflemen then quickly retreated.

32 balls fired at a single British Officer who was slowly crossing a stream and well within the Riflemen’s Range without a single shot hitting, did not say much for their accuracy that day. However, to be fair, they may have had the REST of the British Forces following the Portly Lt. Col. On their minds and worried what would happen to them after they fired.

Gus I have read this and one other similar account at a different action..., and I think that the reports in both cases that the men were riflemen were based on their dress in hunting shirts, and the assumption of the men being riflemen armed with rifles.

The fact that they fired a volley is a HUGE clue that these were not, in fact, riflemen.

I have read accounts of British officers very upset that their men were terrified of any troops wearing hunting shirts, and that Washington knew of this and that was one reason he encouraged the use of the hunting shirt.

LD

 

[Artificer]

Well, it would not be a complete thread on 18th century rifle accuracy if we did not at least mention Timothy Murphy, who legend has it killed British General Simon Fraser at Saratoga.

Accounts have been written that Murphy made the shot from as far away as 440 yards to as near as 285 yards. The story is usually given the shot was "over 400 yards."

However, there were numerous problems with the story, some of the more important ones I'll mention below.

1. Different accounts say that Murphy was one of 2, 3 and as many as 5 Riflemen were ordered to shoot at General Fraser.

2. British Accounts mention General Fraser was shot from the flank by Musket Armed men and one account said it was by an older or grey haired man.

3. Timothy Murphy never actually claimed he made that shot.

Here is a well researched article on the Legend: https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/...thy-murphy-and-the-power-of-the-written-word/

Until or unless some better documentation comes up, I personally discount the story.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The fact that they fired a volley is a HUGE clue that these were not, in fact, riflemen.

LD

Dave, I would agree IF there were not other accounts that stated they were told to fire one man at a time. In this case the use of the term "volley" could well, if not probably meant, a bunch of Riflemen shot at or near the same time.

Gus

 

[joe sebia]

I think that rifling was such an advancement over what was out there at the time, that the increased " accuracy and distance" was notable and thus legend were made. Though many truly depended on the rifle for food and defense that they became quite proficient in their use. I doubt much more competent than those that practice A lot in this day and era.

I would venture to guess that most rifles were 100 to 150 yard capable much like today and much beyond that was bordering expertise.