18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Artificer]

BTW, not to go too far afield from the subject; but I have read it was at least somewhat common when a Rifleman broke his rifle or lost it, etc. and sometimes even if the rifle was still good - that the Artillery "drafted" Riflemen because they were much better at estimating distances than the average Soldier.

Now these were not large guns/cannon, but normally the 3 or 4 pound guns that were used to support the Infantry and often enough in between lines of Infantry when a battle started. Usual effective distance was not more than 300 yards and often less than that.

Gus

 

[Gene L]

I would imagine an artillery battery would want a rifleman, too, to back them up from enemy attacks if his rifle was working. And if it wasn't, a rifleman without a rifle had to do something, so service with an artillery unit would be natural.

 

[Artificer]

Indeed, at the distances these smaller "Galloper" and "Grasshopper" Guns (as they were known in the period) were also the target for American Riflemen in the period.

Gus

 

[George]

Maybe someone who is better at logging in values for a .54 caliber round ball into computer program can give us some bullet drops at 300 and 400 yards?

.535 ball, 229.9 gr. BC=.075, MV 1760, sighted at 100 yards, trajectory is:

25 = +1.2
50 = +2.1
75 = +1.8
100 = 0
200 = -29.1
300 = -107
400 = -256
500 = -501

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Maybe someone who is better at logging in values for a .54 caliber round ball into computer program can give us some bullet drops at 300 and 400 yards?

.535 ball, 229.9 gr. BC=.075, MV 1760, sighted at 100 yards, trajectory is:

25 = +1.2
50 = +2.1
75 = +1.8
100 = 0
200 = -29.1
300 = -107
400 = -256
500 = -501

Spence

Spence,

Bless your heart. Thank you.

That is some SERIOUS bullet drop.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

Kinda makes you wonder about the guy's holdover hitting a horse at 400 yards with a 50 cal instead, doesn't it? Meanwhile, for his aiming he musta had superman eyesight to see the three horses and three uniforms through all that steel with his barrel in the way. :wink:

 

[Billnpatti]

So true. It was a slip on my part. The words "former Marine" is an oxymoron. Once a Marine, always a Marine. Uh-Rah! Semper Fi! :thumbsup:

 

[RAEDWALD]

Thank you Gus. I actually agree with you entirely but wanted to be kind to the devotees of the period riflemen. Many of them were good, even excellent, but they put their trousers on one leg at a time like the rest of us.

 

[hanshi]

Actually this is not meant for anyone in particular. But before my eyes went south I was the top shot in my police dept. I once astounded a friend with my S&W M25 .45acp revolver. I was shooting target reloads at about 750fps when he put a gas can in the grass at some 140 yards. While either braced or standing, didn't matter, I consistently hit that can at least 3 out of 5 shots. I did this by raising the front sight and placing the can on top of it. And even the misses often creased the side of the can.

 

[Zonie]

I think those 300-400 yard shots were more "lobbed in" than aimed and hitting the victim was just a matter of pure luck.

Same goes for the Indians smoothbores in Florida that were said to make some incredible long range shots against some soldiers in the US Army at the time.
(A few years ago there was a heated discussion on the MLF about this event.)

 

[smoothshooter]

I doubt if it is possible to detrrmine whether or not the accuracy of the American riflemen improved in the course of the war.

Very few of the participants on either side were in from beginning to end, or even middle to end.

Militia, in particular, faded in and out, often on a whim, and were notoriously unreliable. It seems that at least half of General Washington's, and other American officer's headaches centered around problems with militia, especially the shortness of their terms of enlistments, desertions, and pay.

 

[smoothshooter]

The sight picture you refer to is not the proper way to do holdover with open sights.
Always put the spot you want to hit on top of the front sight, and, keeping it there, raise the sight and muzzle up and out of the rear sight.
Getting a sight picture like this with the base of the front sight perched on top of the rear sight will isually put you on target Waaayyyy out there.

 

[smoothshooter]

It is also possible that many of the riflemen did not fire at all, holding their fire in case the British suddenly charged, or British cavalrynswept in.
That way they would not be caught with the whole group having empty rifles.

 

[bender20]

I think the other thing we have to remember is this is what they did. They didn't have football, basketball ect... Not to mention they didn't even have time for that stuff. Their life and dinner tables required them to be very proficient with their guns. some of the yardages do seem embellished but I tend to believe that as a general rule they were much better shots than we are now.

 

[Artificer]

I doubt if it is possible to detrrmine whether or not the accuracy of the American riflemen improved in the course of the war.

Very few of the participants on either side were in from beginning to end, or even middle to end.

Militia, in particular, faded in and out, often on a whim, and were notoriously unreliable. It seems that at least half of General Washington's, and other American officer's headaches centered around problems with militia, especially the shortness of their terms of enlistments, desertions, and pay.

You made some very good points, but probably because I did not explain it as well as I could have, I wasn't suggesting any of the Riflemen fought the entire or most of the War. To be more specific, I do believe that while they were on active duty and when possible, they would and did stretch their normal accuracy range through more practice and experience. If that was not possible for some, then your points actually argue for distances on the order of only 200 yards or so, because that was about the maximum they were used to.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

The sight picture you refer to is not the proper way to do holdover with open sights.

Your choice of words is a little rank for saying the same thing I'm saying. Different words, same proper idea.

 

[Artificer]

It is also possible that many of the riflemen did not fire at all, holding their fire in case the British suddenly charged, or British cavalrynswept in.
That way they would not be caught with the whole group having empty rifles.

It's true that many times, at least in the larger battles, the Riflemen were not used to their full and best capacity.

Two notable exceptions to that were the Battles of Saratoga and Cowpens. In both cases the Riflemen were led or commanded by a very capable Rifleman and Commander, Daniel Morgan.

Morgan first came up with using Light Infantry to protect his Riflemen at Saratoga. That way they were protected to freely "do their mischief" by the L.I. - who were armed with their muskets and bayonets and thus strongly lessened an opposing Infantry Bayonet Charge. The Riflemen actually did as much, if not possibly more shooting than the L.I. attached to them in some parts of the battle.

Another superb use of Riflemen was by another Rifleman Commander, George Rogers Clark. He stopped the British at Vincennes from using their cannon against the Americans. This by having his Riflemen fire and hit the British soldiers as they just opened their gun ports, so they eventually gave up trying to open the gun ports. This done at ranges no more than 125 yards and as close as 60 yards, because the British had allowed civilians to build too close to the fort. The Riflemen got up on the rooftops or next to the buildings for cover and access while they shot. So they bottled up the British until they used a terror tactic to get "Hair Buyer Hamilton" to surrender.

There are some other examples where Riflemen in smaller battles also did a superb job, because they were able to use their rifles to the full capability.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

I'd missed those accounts. Sure makes sense in hindsight, but clearly overlooked by some other commanders.

Thanks!

 

[Artificer]

I'd missed those accounts. Sure makes sense in hindsight, but clearly overlooked by some other commanders.

Thanks!

To be honest and even though Washington ORIGINALLY was so much in favor of vast numbers or Riflemen for the Army; Washington and most other Commanders did not really know how to use them, especially at the start of the AWI. It was such a "new" weapon in such large numbers, though the British Army had used some German Riflemen in the FIW.

Then there was a huge discipline problem from the Riflemen when first attached to the Army in the AWI. They often got drunk/rowdy/brawling, would not obey even their own Superior Officers that well - let alone those above them, would not stand normal "fatigue duty" or work details - as they thought it beneath them, and generally made themselves out to be PITA's. A debacle or two around New York and I think Washington severely regretted ever asking for them.

Of course leaders like Dan Morgan and George Rogers Clark had their own ways to deal with and were more respected by the Riflemen. ALL of them knew not to give Dan Morgan any guff and the same thing for George Rogers Clark.

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

I think those 300-400 yard shots were more "lobbed in" than aimed

Exactly. Once the barrel is raised high for a long-long shot all the shooter sees is barrel. Aiming is impossible. And those long shots are greatly affected by wind, mirage, etc. Even a modern cartridge rifle cannot be counted on to hit a target at 300-400 yards. We are using obsolete, antique style arms and must learn they have a limited effective range. Anything more is pure chance.