Stumpkiller said:
When I was a kid everybody knew the early Kentucky's were big because all the old rifles were.
However, this will not stand up to research.
If we look at the rifles captured by the British during the Revolution, comments of the time by people using the rifles and think about the cost of powder and lead and ask the simple question:
"What worked" we come to a different conclusion.
JJ Henry lost his rifle in a river crossing enroute the Quebec with Arnold. He purchased a rifle from a man being sent home for medical reasons. His description indicates it was larger in the bore than the rifle he lost. The replacement rifle used 48 caliber ball.
There is a mint Resor rifle in Steel Canvas that is both pre Rev-War and 42 caliber.
The bonafide, documented battle field caputure "Thomas Rifle" is 47 caliber.
The early Dickert in "Rifles of Colonial America" and "Moravian Gun Making in the American Revolution" is 50 caliber and while used it was returned from England.
Freshing or recutting was common. It was done a great deal. Shield's freshed at least one rifle on the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Based on what I am told by people who have actually done it this adds about 2 calibers to the rifle. Cleanup and uniforming the bore, which generally enlarged at the breech, requires about .010" on a side in most cases. So in a couple of freshings a 42-44 caliber becomes a 46 or 50.
The Western Expansion, crossing the Mississippi and moving out into the plains caused an increase in the bore size. It is documented that calibers under 50 were not nearly as effective due mostly to the ranges involved. Unlike today there were few trees on the plains of Iowa and virtually none of the prairies farther west. No cover. Animals could literally see you coming for miles in some cases. So instead of shooting game at 20 to 80 yards in a relatively windless area they were shooting larger game at ranges often approaching 200 in winds that often blew at near gale force for days. The Wind River and the Wind River Range are not so named from whimsy.
So from surviving rifles, from writings of the time and effectiveness vs cost the 44-50 caliber rifle is a good choice in the east, probably the best compromise.
Were there larger bored rifles? Sure. Some riflemen liked a "ball the size of a Cranberry" if you can determine the size of a Colonial American Cranberry. But I do not believe they were typical. George Hanger, who was a British Officer during the Rev-War stated he never saw one larger than 36 to the pound (.510 ball size) and had seen "many hundreds" and he was a rifleman not just your typical British officer. But he did not see ALL the rifles and there is documentation for larger bores. So his account has some credence. That the people on the frontier were poor tells us that they did not use a firearm that was expensive to shoot.
A 44 caliber rifle will give 55 +- balls to a pound of lead, a Brown Bess Musket about 12-14.
The rifle is suitable for anything the pioneer might want to shoot and is effective on men to 150-200 yards a valid consideration on the Frontier. The 50 caliber is better but reduces the balls per pound to about 40.
54 to 32
62 to 20.
If shooting deer there will be little difference in the 4 calibers. If head shots are used there is no deer to track and ball size becomes even less important.
A man with a 44 caliber ball in the torso will not be very combat effective even if he lives a couple of days.
JJ Henry had 70 balls in his pouch and a pound of powder in his horn by his own account.
70 44 caliber balls is less than a pound and on half. 70 58 caliber balls is over 2 1/2 pounds. Then there is more powder to shoot them.
Going to the Brown Bess the ammunition weight increases to the point that an extra blanket or significantly more food could be carried at the same load for the rifleman. OR a lot less ammo is carried.
Dan
