18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Rifleman1776]

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.

I'm with you.
I said before Bob Munden was from a different world. He had skills perhaps unmatched by any other person of our time.
And, judging ranges. I have been with a lot of men who think they can judge range. My gunshop had targets posted on a wall. Most guys, when asked, judged them to be 50 yards away. In truth they were only about 20 feet. In open spaces a 50 yard distance was often judged to be 300 yards. I like stories, true or not. But stories are just that. Stories to laugh at, not believe. Most a just pure :bull:

 

[George]

Most a just pure :bull:

I can certainly agree to that, there is a lot of :bull: flying around.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

I think you brought up a really important point about judging range, both today and back in the period.

I believe that in the period, Riflemen got exceptionally good (especially by today's standards) at estimating ranges within the range they normally shot and could hit accurately. It would have been a survival skill to know how far was TOO far to shoot and expect to hit. At that stage where it was too far to expect to accurately hit their target, they had to figure out how to get closer to what they wanted to shoot.

Along with this, we usually think in intervals of 100 yards when talking about shooting and so many period references show they did to some point as well, by the numerous mentions of them shooting at 150 or 200 yards, etc. However, the amount of football fields all over the U.S. today of 100 yards is pretty common to estimate distance, even if a person does not shoot. What did they use to estimate distance long before football fields?

We know that Furlongs (660 feet or 220 yards) or parts of Furlongs were quite common in the settled areas thanks to Horse Racing. OK, a Half Furlong was 110 yards and just so happens to have been and remains a good distance to sight a rifle so it would shoot without having to adjust aim between 25 and 150 yards. Wonder if they estimated distance that way?

I also wonder, especially on the frontier, if they estimated distance by "so many chains" which referred to a Surveyor's Chain that was 66 Feet or 22 yards long? I have seen references to measures of distance by "Chains," but don't know if the average 18th century Rifleman would have used that to estimate distance?

It might well be important to discussing 18th century accuracy, if we knew or had a good idea how they estimated the range?

Gus

 

[George]

The only one I've noticed is the rod, 5.5 yards.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
May 27, 1756
When the Indians came within about a Rod of the Place appointed to fire at, one of the Party discharged his Piece, and missed them; and immediately after several others fired, and wounded one of the Indians, who was seen to fall and recover three times, but made his Escape in a thick Lawrel Swamp, which was within two Rods of the Road.
************
From a late-war diary by a Mass. private:

A NEW SONG ON THE TIMES
THIRTEEN STANZAS ON ACCORDING TO THE 13 UNITED STATES

"Their plunder is small, if I counted it all,
Not one rod of land to a man they have lost."
******

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Once again you amaze with your ability to find period quotes on very specialized points of interest. Thank you.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Sorry Gus,

I missed the "head" part of the shooting claim, mea culpa, ...I thought he'd just shot the turkeys....on the other hand, he may have simply hit two turkeys in a group and killed them....and as the story was told it became head shots....of course it also could've been at less than 200 yards, but by the time somebody wrote it down, it was 400 yards.

:shocked2:



LD

 

[BrownBear]

I think you brought up a really important point about judging range, both today and back in the period.

I believe that in the period, Riflemen got exceptionally good (especially by today's standards) at estimating ranges within the range they normally shot and could hit accurately. It would have been a survival skill to know how far was TOO far to shoot and expect to hit. At that stage where it was too far to expect to accurately hit their target, they had to figure out how to get closer to what they wanted to shoot.

I think there's a whole lot to what you're saying.

Got a buddy who's been a bare bow archery hunter his whole life, and he's in his 80's now. When all the wheels and cables, sights and rangefinders came along, he just kept on doing what he's been doing since he was a wee kid back in the 1950's.

He's an uncanny shot, but more than that (or perhaps along with it!), he's almost supernatural in his range "estimates" out to about 75 yards. Beyond that, he just sezz the range is "too far." He's too creaky for heavy bows any more, but still shoots one (self-made long bow) with a smooooooth pull under 30#. Take him out hunting snowshoe hare, and he takes only head shots with that arcing trajectory out to about 35 yards, and he probably makes more of them than the average guy with a scoped 22.

Easy to picture a guy growing up with a muzzleloader in his hand being just like that.

 

[Artificer]

Sure thing Dave,

I know only having shot one turkey in my life, and even though it was just barely in trophy class, is not much to go off, but I was surprised how small the whole bird was, let alone the head.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Great example of someone who knew hot to estimate distance within his range of accuracy.

To All,

On further thought, my speculation on Frontiersmen/Riflemen having used furlongs or parts of furlongs to estimate distance may have been more likely in Virginia or the Riflemen who came from Virginia, than other Colonies.

By the AWI, horse racing was an extremely popular past time in Virginia and they did race in furlongs or parts of furlongs. Period quotes from Cordwainers, in another thread, have included the idea that most Virginian's rode and that explained why they sold so many types of boots. At least one Cordwainer in Williamsburg kept advertising for Journeymen or others who knew how to make boots.

So I imagine that Riflemen from Virginia may have used furlongs or parts of furlongs to estimate distance, but that is only speculation on my part.

Gus

 

[hanshi]

Back when I was a forest ranger I could walk just a part of a fire and tell what acreage had burned. O could also look at a tree and tell the diameter and height. Can't do that now. And I notice when I kill a 125 pound buck he weighs 180 by the time I get to the truck.

 

[George]

Easy to picture a guy growing up with a muzzleloader in his hand being just like that.

I have no doubt that was a big factor in the capabilities of the backwoods riflemen, and I think the people of the day were aware of what was happening.

Blane wrote: "Every boy, as soon as he can lift a rifle, is constantly practicing with it, and thus becomes an astonishingly expert marksman."

Hanger said: "You will often see a boy, not above 10 years of age, driving the cattle home, but not without a rifle on his shoulder: they never stir out, on any business, nor on a journey, without their rifle; practice, from their infancy, teaches them all distances."

Spence

 

[BrownBear]

Hanger said: "You will often see a boy, not above 10 years of age, driving the cattle home, but not without a rifle on his shoulder: they never stir out, on any business, nor on a journey, without their rifle; practice, from their infancy, teaches them all distances."

Reminds me a lot of my youth, now that I think about it, roving all over the desert at that age with a single shot 22 and all the ammo I could afford (not much) on a paltry kid income. Thought I'd struck gold when a neighbor offered me a nickel apiece for jackrabbits, 2 cents each for cottontails, skin guts and all for pig feed. If I recall correctly a box of 22 shorts sold for 15 cents, and "new math" meant I could experiment lots more with the range of that bedraggled rifle. As a matter of fact, I got so good with it my dad used to buy me a box of ammo now and then to put on shooting demos for the amazement of visiting friends and relatives.

So yeah, a 10 year old with his own rifle and an ammo budget could put those young eyes and reflexes to very good use.

 

[Artificer]

Hanger said: "You will often see a boy, not above 10 years of age, driving the cattle home, but not without a rifle on his shoulder: they never stir out, on any business, nor on a journey, without their rifle; practice, from their infancy, teaches them all distances."

Spence

OK, once again I guess I am going to have to be a stick in the mud.

The problem is that for all of us alive today, we grew up with guns that were cheap enough and small enough that rather poor people could afford for their boys that young. The Industrial Revolution made it possible for smaller and rather cheap guns and .22 ammo, as early as the start of the 20th century and in time for the Depression. I remember the .22 Stevens single shot rifle my Grandfather had that was sized just right for a lad that young.

But this begs the question, how did large numbers of dirt poor or subsistence level frontier folks afford short stocked/barreled rifles for their boys that young/small in stature in the 18th century when rifles and guns cost a lot more? Guns had to be hand built before the Industrial Revolution and even cheap guns then cost more of a person's living than they do today. Though I'm sure period gunsmiths could have made them, where is the documentation for it?

Were longer stocks and barrels of full size rifles cut down so the boys could handle them that young and then passed down through the family? How many times was that possible for families who had 2,3 or more boys?

I admit I am thinking of myself and a whole bunch of boys when I was a lad in the early 60's. I began carrying a bolt action shotgun when I was 10 and got "One Shell a Day" for my first year hunting. It was darn hard to hit anything because that stock was too long, even with it being a shotgun. Dad had a Winchester Model 74 .22 rifle that we could afford to shoot more than that and that stock fit a bit better, but not a whole lot of shells for that.

The Industrial Revolution and Mossberg with their cheap M 500 shotguns and stocks short enough for a 12 year old in the 20 gauge allowed me to shoot a LOT more, as did Dad getting promoted in his work. Dad got us kids shotguns instead of rifles because we could hunt a lot more game with them than .22 rifles and he and Mom could not afford both a rifle and shotgun for my brother, myself and my Sister - who grew up hunting right along with us.

It has come up on more than one time in this thread about a modern mind set vs an 18th century mind set. I think we assume and accept Hanger's quote today because it was possible within our lifetimes. We know it was possible in America in Hanger's time, but possible does not mean probable for many people.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oh, if we don't take too much of Hanger's point about boys "as young as 10" carrying rifles and go up to age 12 where most boys have grown enough to at least better handle a full size rifle, we still are back to the point did the average frontier family have enough money to buy rifles for each of their boys at that age when they had 2, 3 or more boys? It seems MUCH more likely that a single extra rifle was possibly available for all the boys in the family to use, unless there was only one son.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oh, and as far as the boys buying their first "full size" rifle, it seems most of the documentation we have is that didn't usually happen until they were at least in their late teens, again because period rifles cost so much?

Gus

 

[BrownBear]

Can you imagine the family celebration and pride when that happened!!!! :hatsoff:

 

[Artificer]

Can't you imagine the family celebration and pride when that happened!!!! :hatsoff:

So true!! With the large percentage of infant through five year old mortality rate back then, it was a HUGE deal just for a child to reach their late teens. Add to that when they could buy their first rifle, it must have been a Brae Bonny Celebration, indeed!

Gus

 

[George]

There is the distinct possibility, which we don't even want to think about, that our picture of life at that time is seriously flawed. It cannot be the case that every citizen was completely poverty stricken and barely scratching out a subsistence living. I personally concluded a long time ago that a large part of our beliefs in that regard are :bull:. Absent documentation to the contrary, what logic is there in assuming what they say cannot be true because of what we "know" to be the situation at that time?

Insisting that the info which comes down to us from people who were there must fit into our understanding of the way things were is totally bassackwards.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

I wasn't suggesting every citizen was poverty stricken who owned rifles, matter of fact in the past I have on more than one occasion noted about Lt. Col. Phillip Ludwell Lee, Master of Stratford Hall, who owned what was probably an extremely expensive Turvey Rifle.

Sure, there were some folks on the frontier who had enough money to buy more than one rifle or other luxury items.

But the documentation on many of the folks who moved to the frontier did so, BECAUSE they were poor and were trying to improve their lot in life and this from the 17th century onward and all over the colonies, as they moved ever westward. One gun for them was a huge expense.

Even the "stories" that many people do not readily accept as documentation, rarely mention more than one gun per family, whether smoothbore or rifled - though in fewer examples have an extra or "old" gun.

Add to this how expensive guns were in the time, even such guns that are often called "Barn Guns" or "Schimmel Rifles" today as well as trade guns.

Militia laws from the very early 18th century onwards called for all Males from 16 to 60 be armed and show up at musters. Yet at the same time, there is a lot of documentation many of the poor could not afford one gun at all, unless they were on the frontier where it was vital for survival. Still, this is at least some documentation for "Boys" who were 16 to have had a gun, though not necessarily a rifle.

I'm not sure how much we can take from period Probate Inventories, as they were often from when the men were older and their children had grown and gone. So the fact those probates only speak to only one or two or even no gun, may not be good documentation for younger men with younger sons.

If numerous guns were available and common in frontier families, then where is the documentation?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

A modification to my above post. Militia laws often only required those of 18 to have guns and not as young as 16, at least in Virginia, though other colonies required 16 year olds to have guns in the period. Of course, PA did not have a militia system for the most part until the AWI.

Gus