400 yard hits with a patched round ball

[jdkerstetter]

I gotta agree with Bullfrog there Mike. Indian tactics can't be put in a box like that. They were know to snip as from hiding as often as they attacked in mass....maybe more often. There are many, many accounts to support this.

Indian warrior cultures were very diverse too, often within the same region. Not near as predictable as your painting them. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Interesting sure. But, almost laser-like range estimation is required and an intense knowledge of ballistics to make the shot predictably.

You have to remember also, that to be a 17th or 18th century career enlisted soldier was not usually the preferred profession of educated people, war-time motivations excepted. That's at least part of the reason the Continentals prevailed over the British.

 

[George]

I have never read of any Indians combatants with that much ammunition to spare or waste on lob shots.

If I understand this battle, there were about 1100 soldiers in the force, they attempted to cross a river and were attacked by the indians so fiercely that they built a temporary barricade and were pinned down for 8 days. How many Indians, how much ammo does it take to do that, I wonder?

Spence

 

[Birdwatcher]

I have never read of any Indians combatants with that much ammunition to spare or waste on lob shots. It's just not how gorilla warfare was or is conducted, especially when out numbered and on the run with minimal re-supply available.

They got close , struck and melted into the forest to strike again when advantage was on their side.

And yet the opening account specifically mentions the corpse of a Seminole rifleman with "50 or 60 bullets", presumably in a pouch or bag, about his person.

Recall, this was the opening months of that long conflict wherein goods were not yet depleted and trade avenues had not yet or had not long been cut.

Sorta related, I've just finished reading Richard Berleth's excellent 2009 book Bloody Mohawk: The French and Indian War & American Revolution on New York's Frontier

You may recall that in the late summer/fall of 1779 the American side in the Rev War launched the Sullivan Expedition into Iroquois Territory, specifically targeting the Senecas in Western New York, then the largest and most remote Tribe of that Confederation.

By that time the Senecas had enjoyed decades of relative peace in their own homeland, keeping settlers and their attendant diseases and alchohol at arm's length while enjoying the full benefits of trade and technological exchange.

The journals kept by members of Sullivan's 2,000 man force are revealing.

"...[destroyed] 150 acres of the best corn I ever saw (some of the stalks grew 16 feet high) besides great quantities of beans, potatoes, pumpkins, cucumbers squashes and watermelons...

...thirty neatly built and finished houses made a fine bonfire... while the army was employed in destroying corn and fruit trees, of which there was great abundance. Many of the trees appeared to be of great age....

Canandaigua, a very pretty town, very compact and neatly built with houses much better built than any I have seen before went up in flames."


And elsewhere in the book, this from American Militia Colonel Peter Gansevoort referencing the Mohawks...

"It is remarkable that most of the Indians live much better than most of the Mohawk River farmers, their houses very well furnished with all necessary household utensils, great plenty of grain, several horses, cows and wagons."

Yet the society remained Indian, and the men from those communities went to war dressed and painted as Indian warriors. It would be no surprise though if they carried good quality firearms, and the Iroquois were the only pre-Rev War rifle culture we know of in Upstate New York.

I can dig up references and accounts of the 1830's Creeks, first cousins of the Seminoles, in Georgia referencing plantation houses, slaves, and breeding fine racehorses... all this from guys fantastically painted and garbed in contemporary portraits.

This sort of cultural exchange seems to have been universal wherever the Frontier had stabilized long enough. Weren't ALL Indians, even in those communities but no...

...as stated, you can't put Indian tactics in a box. What you CAN count on is that in the years since, popular American history will have forgotten most of the details.

So ya, weren't outlandish at all that many Seminoles coulda had first-class rifles.

Birdwatcher

 

[Birdwatcher]

I, and some others here, never claimed that the man lied about guys being hit be balls from 400 yards away.

My only point is that nobody has any idea whether those shots were aimed or by chance. There's just no way to know

Except the original Gaines source specifies "single rifle shots", presumably followed on occasion a moment later by a hit. Conditions may well have been ideal for such Hail Mary shots, the Americans trapped behind low breastworks 300 yards long.

I'm gonna give the likes of an Edmund Gaines credit for being able to recognize when he was being specifically shot at as opposed to stray balls flying over from distant Indians squirrel hunting or whatever.

Would EVERY attempt hit? No of course not, but I'm betting sudden spouts of dirt from aimed shots landing inside and around the compound were pretty regular.

Whatever, the American account did specify "the Indian rifles were much better than ours". Not every hit was from 400 yards of course or maybe even close to that, but apparently they had to keep their heads down in daylight during that interminable week.

Birdwatcher

 

[jdkerstetter]

....but apparently they had to keep their heads down in daylight....

Well, that could have gone without being said, as anybody who's been shot at knows, no matter what the range, you'd better keep your head down.

:stir: Funny thing is, with your head down, it's impossible to know for sure exactly how far away the shot are coming from unless there is nothing but open, barren ground between you and them. :wink: Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Interesting sure. But, almost laser-like range estimation is required and an intense knowledge of ballistics to make the shot predictably.

Of note, turns out Indian warriors with bows didn't draw them to the eye and aim down the arrow, on horseback at least. Instead they held the bow low and flat and fired by "feel" or "instinct", achieving both rapid fire and remarkable accuracy.

The longest known shot with an Indian bow occurred here in Texas (Bird's Creek Fight, 1838??), where a Ranger Captain standing on the edge of a ravine to encourage his longrifle-armed men, was hit in the heart by a single arrow lobbed by a Comanche estimated at having been 200 yards away.

I doubt that anyone on either side had a rangefinder, all of the Comanches and likely a few of the Rangers were illiterate even if they had.

Yet those sixteen rifle-armed rangers knocked an estimated 30 of the maybe 300 Comanches off of their horses for a loss of six of their own before the Comanches disengaged.

I'll bet a whole bunch of firing by "instinct" occurred in that scrap, both sides drawing upon a lifetime of using their respective weapon systems when estimating elevation and windage.

Birdwatcher

 

[Birdwatcher]

Funny thing is, with your head down, it's impossible to know for sure exactly how far away the shot are coming from unless there is nothing but open, barren ground between you and them.

Ya, and you forgot to add that prob'ly they were all curled up in a fetal position sucking on their thumbs too :shake:

 

[smo]

The longest known shot with an Indian bow occurred here in Texas (Bird's Creek Fight, 1838??), where a Ranger Captain standing on the edge of a ravine to encourage his longrifle-armed men, was hit in the heart by a single arrow lobbed by a Comanche estimated at having been 200 yards away.Birdwatcher

Like I stated earlier the proofs in the puddin'

If they were that good of a shot with a stick & string, just think what would be possible with a little BP and a round ball :shocked2: :rotf: :stir:

 

[jdkerstetter]

Ya, and you forgot to add that prob'ly they were all curled up in a fetal position sucking on their thumbs too :shake:

Oh, I doubt it, but it's your story. I just know from experience how close people can get to you without you knowing they are there. In fact that's one of the purposes of harassing fire...to keep the other guys' heads down while your friends get closer.

These are tactics that have been employed for centuries. I'm sure they weren't new to the American Indian. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Oh, I doubt it, but it's your story.

??

*sigh* No, that sounds like just an inept attempt at chain-yanking on your part.

So, in summary, your position is that Edmund Gaines was wrong in his assessment of the situation?

Sure he COULD have been, but his truly exemplary record argues to the contrary.

 

[jdkerstetter]

What was Gaines position again? Oh, sentries were routinely wounded, even killed by single shots at 400 yards.

Your contend that by single shots that the enemy was aiming and hitting targets at that range. Smoke from a single shot is seen, or the report heard and men fall routinely.

I feel it is as likely that what Gaines meant by his statement was that those wounded or killed were struck by a single ball, not that a single shot was fired and a single man dropped.

Your original post indicates that it was Bosworth quoting the General's report. Do we have the actual report? Do we know that Bosworth is reporting the General's intent accurately?

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Put another way, our marxman would have to aim at a point 28.167 above the mans body.

Dammit! I have GOT to dig up my copy of "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat" for its chapter on sniping. Reb and Yank alike were holding over higher than that in some instances.

Now, one must ask, how did this sharpshooter know he needed to aim 28 feet above the target?

Perhaps because all he had ever known were patched round-ball rifles.

It isn't like powder and ball were plentiful among the indians.
It isn't like they had nothing better to do than to squander the powder and ball that was needed to provide food...

Aaak! Yet another confirmed case of pop historitis

The answer is it depends upon the Indian. This was 1836 Florida at the start of hostilities


...just to find out how high they needed to aim at a target about 1/4 mile away.

Sir, your knowledge of human nature seems a bit questionable. Refer to the contemporary (as of 1836) Cherokee "Rich Joe" Vann; surely he didn't have that many paddlewheelers in his fleet that he could afford to blow one of 'em up racing. But he did, but then he was drunk at the time...

(from "An Oral History of Talequah and the Cherokee Nation").

His boat, the Lucy Walker, was losing ground so he ordered the engineer, an ex-slave, to throw a side of pork meat into the boiler. The man refused, knowing that throwing fat in the fire would make too much pressure, causing the boiler to explode.

Rich Joe did not intend to lose the race so he produced a pistol and again demanded that the side of pork be added. The engineer had his men do as requested, then immediately jumped overboard...

...two days after the accident, a dismembered arm clad in a purple silk sleeve and wearing a diamond signet ring was found in a tree, half a mile from the site. The ring and silk sleeve belonged to Rich Joe Vann.

Or refer to Daniel Boone's account of frequent rifle matches among Black Fish's Shawnees when he was their captive. This after years of war when Indian powder charges were often so light that the report of their rifles in combat was distinctive.

This whole thing sounds like a mixture of one Army officer trying to find a good reason for loosing some men and pure luck on the part of the Indian, assuming the story is even true.

Refer to Edmund Gaines' bio, you can call him a liar if ya want.

But from another angle, if that claim were so fantastic in the long rifle era, why would he make it if he was lying?

Birdwatcher

 

[Birdwatcher]

What was Gaines position again? Oh, sentries were routinely wounded, even killed by single shots at 400 yards.

??

Now you're reaching even more.

If it weren't extraordinary, likely he wouldn't have mentioned it. And his overall casualties were very light. We know from his years among the Creeks that the Indians respected him for his principled fairness, I'm guessing his men respected him too.

But until I get time to look into it that is pure speculation on my part.

Birdwatcher

 

[Loyalist Dave]

According to the map and description by one of the soldiers present, Woodburne Potter, the stockade was on a peninsula about 700-800 yards wide, with a pond in the middle that provided water. The area was large enough that the Seminoles' rifle shots could reach the soldiers, but far enough away so the soldiers' musket shots could not reach the Seminoles.

Musket range is 60 yards max for "effective". Doesn't make the argument for a 400 yard shot. A man with a rifle, especially with cover, could stand at 100 yards and not sweat folks with muskets shooting at him.

which brings up the point, how exactly does one "hide the smoke" as previously suggested they did when shooting a BP rifle from 200 yards or less?

You choose a position well inside the treeline which is in shadow, though it allows you to still see your target, thus by the time the rising smoke from your rifle hits the sunlight it has dissapated enough to prevent it from being easily detected or seen by the naked eye of the opponents located about 200 yards away. Simple.

He enlisted in 1799 at the age of 22 and rose through the ranks.

Which is an argument for his leadership skills, not his knowledge of firearms or his personal skill in the use of them.

When not at war he was employed as a SURVEYOR for chrissakes

Wow, so you are saying that he what, called a "time out" and used his chain to measure the distance? You have a very poor understanding of what 18th and early 19th century "surveyors" actually did or what skill set was employed. Accurate range estimation by the human eye was not part of them. FYI George Washington was also a "surveyor" as a young man..., they handed him the tools and said "you're a surveyor", oh and he was paid for his services. They didn't have calibrated eyeballs.

LD

 

[jdkerstetter]

Now you're reaching even more.

Come on. Really? I'm the one reaching??? You're the one taking a few quotes, which may or may not be in context, as you don't have the documents they came from, and drawing conclusions about peoples character, fighting and shooting abilities.

Did you start this thread as a discussion or just to share your views? I ask because it's not clear based on your replies to many who have dissenting opinions.

If it weren't extraordinary, likely he wouldn't have mentioned it.

There are many reasons people mention otherwise unremarkable things in reports, military or otherwise. To further an agenda is one reason. Could be you're general wanted to influence future decisions on weapons procurement toward the purchase of rifles rather than smoothbores....he makes sure his ideas are supported with evidence in his reports.

Is that lying? No, it's not even deception. It's pointing out facts, that while otherwise unimportant to the outcome of the battle, are considered important in framing future decisions.

Now, I'm not saying that was the case, just and example. It's just the way things work. A good leader has to be opportunistic. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[M. De Land]

I was thinking in terms of the subject matter we were discussing concerning the Seminoles and as far as I have read they were not well supplied at least in terms of invasion repellent capability and in general did use gorilla tactics to resistance. Mike D.

 

[blackpowderscout]

 

[Birdwatcher]

Well, this could go on forever...

A man with a rifle, especially with cover, could stand at 100 yards and not sweat folks with muskets shooting at him.

:haha: You first.


...an argument for his leadership skills, not his knowledge of firearms or his personal skill in the use of them.

OK, lets assume that ol'Edmund, who was raised in 18th Century Tennessee, had served in the militia in his teens and been in the military on and off for fifty years at this point, including several in which he commanded men on the firing line in several hard-fought battles, including one in which he was awarded the nation's highest available decoration for valor....

....had no special knowledge of firearms nor personal skill in the use of them...

You choose a position well inside the treeline which is in shadow, though it allows you to still see your target, thus by the time the rising smoke from your rifle hits the sunlight it has dissapated enough to prevent it from being easily detected or seen by the naked eye of the opponents located about 200 yards away. Simple.


OK, in front of 1,000 pairs of eyes and ears belonging to the very people being shot at, who are anything but unsuspecting at that point, the Seminoles somehow contrive to find patch of woodlands 200 yards away meeting those conditions you laid out, and THEN contrive to fire "single shots" (from the original description) in close enough concert with a guy who's rifle smoke can be seen 400 yards away, yet close enough to the line of fire so that both reports a) sounds as one and b) apparently come from the same location.

...and you find this more probable than taking the original quote at face value?

Finally....

Wow, so you are saying that he what, called a "time out" and used his chain to measure the distance? You have a very poor understanding of what 18th and early 19th century "surveyors" actually did or what skill set was employed. Accurate range estimation by the human eye was not part of them. FYI George Washington was also a "surveyor" as a young man..., they handed him the tools and said "you're a surveyor", oh and he was paid for his services. They didn't have calibrated eyeballs.

Well I've reenacted as part of a 19th Century surveying crew if that counts.

But really, have you never been employed at any outdoor occupation that required accurately measuring distances?

I have, I did environmental surveys on and off for decades in the era before GPS. If George started out as a neophyte, by the end of the first day of hauling chain his distance estimation abilities had already improved 1,000%, and only got better from then on in.

Birdwatcher

 

[Birdwatcher]

You're the one taking a few quotes, which may or may not be in context, as you don't have the documents they came from, and drawing conclusions about peoples character, fighting and shooting abilities.

Well, actually there's two of us sharing my opinion:

Me and the late, great, Carl Parcher Russel, (from whom I got the citation) to whom Historians and Fur Trade reenactors especially, owe a great debt of gratitude...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Parcher_Russell

And OF COURSE I must find Gains' original report, I believe this is vitally important as these are the longest shot claims I've heard of. As such, this is a part of our history that oughtta be preserved AND widely disseminated.

As for the rest, who's character, fighting and shooting abilities are you referring to?

White settlers? Don't need to, few would challenge their abilities, THAT much is still recalled in the old narrative of popular history

(FWIW the new narrative of pop history is called "revisionist" and/or "politically correct" and is likewise only partially correct).

Edmund Gaines? What part of his credibility do you question? (ALL of it apparently)

Indians in general? I provided numerous other examples of Native marksmanship/ownership of rifles.

The Seminoles? Look up their record in Texas after Removal, it is truly remarkable.

Did you start this thread as a discussion or just to share your views? I ask because it's not clear based on your replies to many who have dissenting opinions.

??

I'm wondering how my giving a different opinion differs from anybody elses.

Birdwatcher