18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Rifleman1776]

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

Much of what you say is true. However, Washington, learned in his early years the 'indian' style of fighting and supported the concept for his riflemen. His losses came when he did not use them in a stealthy manner but in the old 'European' manner. Yes, as a whole the riflemen were stubborn individualists who obeyed orders only when they felt like it. But, they were all volunteers willing to die for the sake of freedom.

 

[Billnpatti]

I once read of a commander who was familiar with the reputation of the militia units in battle. So, he placed them in front of the regular military unit with the specific orders to fire their arms and then run like hell. He knew they, not being professionally trained military men, likely would run anyway. Then as the enemy advanced, the regular military unit would engage a weakened force. Those remaining of the militia would have time in the rear to reload and re-engage the enemy. It was a tactic that worked for him. I wish I could remember the name of the commander who employed the militia in this manner. Perhaps more than one employed this tactic. :idunno:

 

[Artificer]

I believe you mean General Dan Morgan at the Battle of Cowpens. He put his weakest Militia in front, BUT had asked them the night before to fire only two or three shots, then run back and reform behind his "Regulars." Ole Dan sucked the British under Tarleton right in and killed or captured most of the British Force.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Even a modern cartridge rifle cannot be counted on to hit a target at 300-400 yards.

Really? I've tried five at 500 yards without optics, three M16A2's, one M16A2 Carbine, and one Australian made Lee-Enfield #1 MK 3, and all five out to 500 yards with iron sights, hit the man sized silhouette between the shoulders and the belt...except for the carbine which threw a couple lower than that. The SMLE with .303 British ammo was using open iron sights, and the others were used a military standard peep, nothing "match" grade, nor was the ammo. 10 of 10 from the prone with a sling, for all five.

But you are correct the velocities drop sooo much for the round ball that we are talking more "law of averages" when a rifleman hit at distances beyond 200..., in other words use a very hot load, aim at a stationary target, then elevate over the top of said target, launch and pray....if you hit...you say "I meant to do that".

LD

 

[Rifleman1776]

launch and pray....if you hit...you say "I meant to do that".

LD

:grin: pray and brag. I love that combo. :v

 

[Artificer]

Generally speaking, there were discipline problems from many of the original men who made up Washington's first troops. One doesn't turn a Mob of Civilians into an Army until the men are well trained and discipline is enforced.

The Riflemen were not "so full of vigor, robust health, etc., etc." as was often romanticized about them. They were however, tough and inured to hardship and privation. Many of them had been in at least some Indian Fighting and that was some of the most brutal combat of the time. As they traveled up to Boston, many "Dog and Pony Show" shooting exhibitions were held and they were highly acclaimed, the like of which they had never seen before and were almost hailed as saviors of the Revolution.

The problem was they (being human) let it go to their heads and they began believing the hype about themselves. They came to think of themselves as Elite Forces, supposedly being able to easily beat the British, at least before they met them on the field of battle. This instilled a false sense of elitism and confidence in themselves, as well as privileges beyond other Soldiers.

"Of all the useless sets of men who have ever encumbered an army, surely the boasted riflemen are certainly the more so... they had every liberty and indulgence allowed them... They had more pay than any other soldiers; they did no duty; were under no restraint.... and did almost intirely as they please in every respect whatsoever. But they have not answered the end for which they were designed in any article whatever, for instead of being the best marksmen in the world, and picking off every Regular that was to be seen, there is scarsely a regiment in camp but what can produce men that can beat them at their shooting...They are not so formidable adversaries as they would wish to be thought."

Quoted in Commager and Morris, The Spirit of Seventy Six. This from Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution, by Joe D. Huddleston.

Now, I have no doubt that some of the above came from jealousy, but the conduct of the Riflemen sometimes to often earned the above criticism.

The Riflemen did want to fight, but were not used to siege warfare and since they had no other duties to perform to occupy their time, they often got into trouble and raided the guardhouse to release one of their comrades.

Ever heard of the Mutiny of Prospect Hill? So I don’t have to try to squint and type from Huddeston, I will paraphrase. Basically a Sergeant from a Pennsylvania Rifle unit was confined to the guardhouse and some of his comrades set him free. Their Regimental Adjutant then jailed both the Sergeant and primary Mutineer from the party who freed him. The 32 other Mutineers looked like they would make trouble, so George Washington himself had eventually up to 500 musket and bayonet armed soldiers surround them so they would give up without bloodshed. They were fined 20 shillings each at their Court Martial.

This Quoted in Commager and Morris, The Spirit of Seventy Six and Boatner, Enclyclodpedia of the American Revolution. This from Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution, by Joe D. Huddleston.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

This is not the quote I referred to earlier, but very much like it. Still looking for the other quote.

"...before they are able to make a second discharge, it frequently happens that they found themselves run through the body by the push of the bayonet, as a rifleman is not entitled to any quarter."

Middlesex Journal, December 31, 1776.

Of course, Dan Morgan's tactic of combining Light Infantry with his Riflemen at Saratoga, was the answer to that threat.

Gus

P.S. This seems to at least strongly suggest they were not shooting from over 200 yards, at least up to that time.

 

[BrownBear]

I'm pretty sure it was none other than Simon Kenton I read about who was reputed to have head shot at least a couple of turkeys with witnesses. At something like 400 yards if my geezerly memory is coming through this time. You da man, Simon! :bow:

 

[Artificer]

Good grief, that sounds like the Blarney Boulder rolling by... :wink: :haha:

I have read and heard a lot of things attributed to Simon Kenton, but never anything like that.

Gus

 

[George]

Further, the second quote is "at best" American Riflemen further pulling Hanger's leg. This because the drop of the ball at 400 is well over the almost 10 foot drop at 300 yards. So "aiming at the head" at 400 yards was pure "joshing" or "blowing smoke" up Hanger's....well, you know. :haha:

I'm sure there were tellers of tall tales in the old days, as well as gullible people, but I hesitate to believe all the reports we have which tell of very good, very long range shooting are intentionally misleading... aka lies. A factor which we find difficult to really understand is how poorly most of the old boys understood how their rifles worked. Yes, there were scientists at the time who were busily working it out, and they understood a lot of the same basics we believe, today, but general knowledge of the physics involved was not widespread.

A good example is the book Scloppetaria, written by a military man, Captain Henry Beaufroy, in 1808. It's the first book written in English about target shooting, and is full of fascinating details of their procedures, equipment, loading practices, etc.. Beaufroy would seem to be a person who would have the latest info on how rifle guns worked, but you'd be surprised. He spent the first two chapters of the book considering why a rifle ball spins, gave many fine, closely reasoned arguments for his belief, complete with detailed instructions for experiments to prove his point. His conclusion...rifle balls spin because of the action of the air on the spiral grooves impressed on them as the balls are driven down the rifling. The only reason for the rifling to exist is to engrave those grooves on the ball. Works for arrows, why not for bullets.

I doubt many of the accounts which have come down to us are from men patently lying. I choose to believe they were telling it straight, as they saw it, expressing their understanding of what was going on, with the knowledge available to them at that early stage of the development of ballistics. It had been only a very few years since they even had the ability to measure the velocity of balls with anything like accuracy.

Nothing has changed. Many people on this very forum express opinions so at odds with the general, scientific agreements as to the physics involved that it makes you wonder how truthful their tales are. In almost every instance they aren't lying, they are just uninformed of the real situation. None of us is immune, we all are mistaken, just to different degrees.

Spence

 

[BrownBear]

Good grief, that sounds like the Blarney Boulder rolling by... :wink: :haha:

I have read and heard a lot of things attributed to Simon Kenton, but never anything like that.

Gus

Not worth digging for, but shaky memory said it was in one of his biographies. My reaction when reading it was "sell more books."

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

That was a well thought out and written post and I agree with most of it completely. :hatsoff:

Sure, most of the time when people wrote something down, it was because they believed it was true, at least when they wrote it. I'm sure Hanger was at least pretty sure it was true.

However, there was good reason for American Riflemen to ahem..... exaggerate, to Hanger besides just bragging. It probably was meant to throw him off and maybe be what we would call today a psychological tactic. They would not have known it by that term, but they knew how to do it. Instilling fear into an enemy by deception and or disinformation were things they understood quite well.

I admit being puzzled after Hanger was shot at in real life at 400 yards and the American Rifleman MISSED him and Tarleton - how Hanger could have believed such a claim. Unless I am mistaken, all three of those quotes were written after Hanger returned to Britain? If so, then Hanger KNEW such shooting at 400 yards and in almost perfect conditions did not result in the accuracy the Riflemen claimed.

Was Hanger confused and did not remember being missed at 400 yards? Was he working off notes from his ledger or journal, or from memory and did not correct himself? I don't know...?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oh, it never mentions where Hanger got the information, so it may not have come from American Patriot Riflemen and may have come from Loyalist Riflemen bragging up their abilities to impress their "Regular Army" Commander.

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

Was Hanger confused and did not remember being missed at 400 yards? Was he working off notes from his ledger or journal, or from memory and did not correct himself? I don't know...?

Could have been brewsky bragging too. More than one tall tale has been told by guys wanting free drinks at the bar. Then, as well as now I bet! Same thing if you're planning on running for office and wanting votes. :wink:

 

[Artificer]

Another possibility is that Hanger was bragging on himself by making the enemy sound more capable than what they really were. That had been done for centuries before Hanger and still goes on today. After all, Hanger was trying to sell books, himself.....

Gus

 

[Zonie]

Could have been brewsky bragging too. More than one tall tale has been told by guys wanting free drinks at the bar. Then, as well as now I bet! Same thing if you're planning on running for office and wanting votes. :wink:

Ya mean like the one armed man in the bar who held up his arm and said, "That fish I caught was THAT LONG!!"

:rotf:

 

[George]

Whole lot of speculating from a 21st-century mind set, it seems to me.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

21st Century or 18th Century Mindset?

Just because they may not have called it the same thing we do today, did not mean they did not do it.

The two letters to the Editors of the British Newspapers mentioned on the first page of this thread; were clearly propaganda meant to puff up the abilities of the American Riflemen and at least cause consternation in the British Public and hopefully fear in those who might come to serve in America. Today we call this “Psychological Warfare.”

Paul Revere’s Engraving “The Bloody Massacre in King-Street, March 5, 1770” deliberately misdirected, used deception and puffed up what the British Soldiers actually did to make the Patriots look far better as the victims and thus help the cause. Of course he not only sold the prints as he had earlier prints, but the renown he got from this and earlier prints sure put money in his pockets. http://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo.../paul-revere’s-engraving-boston-massacre-1770

Washington learned his spycraft during his service in the French and Indian War. He recruited and managed spies. He provided French spies with misinformation. http://www.mountvernon.org/george-...espionage/spies-dead-drops-and-invisible-ink/

Washington used deception and misdirection when he had the great guns Henry Knox brought back Ticonderoga installed on Dorchester Heights.

Washington used much of his small supply of powder in a cannonade that covered the Patriots by misdirection, while they brought the guns to the Heights and dug/built the embrasures. The deception used was that Washington did not have nearly enough powder and shot to fire on the British Fleet and Occupied Boston. Washington further added to the deception by stationing 6,000 troops there where the British could see them. Result? The British left Boston without firing a shot because of the perceived but false threat of the guns on the Heights.

Now, I have not found an 18th century example of how a person got more drinks out of someone for telling tall tales”¦”¦:hmm: :wink:

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I'm pretty sure it was none other than Simon Kenton I read about who was reputed to have head shot at least a couple of turkeys with witnesses. At something like 400 yards if my geezerly memory is coming through this time. You da man, Simon!

Good grief, that sounds like the Blarney Boulder rolling by...

I have read and heard a lot of things attributed to Simon Kenton, but never anything like that.

WHY?

I ask as we see some odd stuff all the time in our lives. Just check YouTube and you will see some pretty outlandish stuff. SEE Bob Munden 200 Yard Shot 'OH, but that's Bob Munden" people say...., so? You don't know from that video how much practice he had to do to be able to accomplish that feat. Why couldn't another person do that too?

Now consider that you can see and identify turkeys that far away in an open field (I've done so...seen turkeys that far off and known they were turkeys, and they were standing in a group)..., perhaps standing on the side of a slight rise. So just for fun you lob some rifle balls at the turkeys with your buddies standing around...and whap you hit one, so you try it again (now you've got a good spot to "hold" since you just hit one) and you hit a second. Doesn't mean you actually meant to hit the one that you did. Heck, you're as surprised as your friends. At that range if you missed, the pop from the rifle and the impact of the bullet on the ground probably wouldn't spook the birds..., maybe Kenton missed a couple of times before he hit, OR maybe he got lucky.

LUCK does count from time to time....

I've heard that Clint Eastwood in 1968 was in Japan, promoting Hang 'Em High following the success of his third "spaghetti western" The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly which had been released in Japan in the previous year. So he was invited to a recreated western town, and was handed a live-loaded cap-n-ball Colt and the officials at the location having gotten special permission, asked Eastwood to fire the gun at the town sign, I suppose to inaugurate it as a tourist attraction or to "christen" it or something. So Eastwood, an actor not a trick shot, shrugged and fired the revolver at the sign....and cut one of the two chains that suspended the sign from a crossbar.

NOW it was total luck that this was done, but Eastwood didn't let on he was more amazed than the Japanese spectators, who of course expected Eastwood to be an good shot, and it was demonstrated as far as they knew, that Eastwood was a legendary shot.

:idunno:


LD

 

[Artificer]

Dave,

I freely admit I have only ever taken one Turkey in my life. I wasn't actually hunting for Turkey that day, but rather deer in Nottaway County, Virginia. I was armed with a Model 1100 with a rifle sighted slug barrel and was using Number 1 Buckshot, because that was the most accurate buck shot load in my gun. The ONLY reason I shot at it was it was the last few minutes of that year's deer/turkey season and I had not gotten a deer yet. Long story short, I hit it on the fly starting at around 30 yards and the last shot about 65 yards. I wasn't even sure I had hit it on any of the shots, but a hunting partner who was behind a hill between him and me, saw all three shots hits on the Turkey. Even though I grew up doing a lot of hunting on quail, pheasants, and ducks/geese on the Mississippi Flyway - that was a LUCKY series of shots that amazed me. One of the guys in our club who actually did do a lot of Turkey hunting said it was just inside trophy class.

OK, let's use the trajectory chart, that Spence so kindly supplied, as a sort of general look at the bullet drop Kenton was dealing with.

.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

Even if we "fudge estimate" the drop that Kenton dealt with in his favor, that is still a drop of around 20 feet at 400 yards at a turkey's head, which is a very small target and that does not consider any windage drift problems.

Even supposing the Turkey stood still long enough for Kenton to have seen him, raised his rifle, aimed and fired, and that's an gigantic IF, I wonder how much of the barrel behind the front sight that Kenton had to use to align his rear sight?

Oh, and we are not talking about the broad side of a Deer, but the head of a Turkey. Further the claim was Kenton had not done it just once on the first shot at that distance, but had done it more than once.

I'm sorry, but after having spent a career building NM and Sniper Rifles, spent more time on NM ranges than I can remember, and more time with some of the best military and civilian shots in the country - such a claim shatters the glass on my Bovine Bowel Bulb Meter. :rotf:

Gus