Colonial marksmen, via the 'London Paper', circa 1775

[Flint62Smoothie]

Watch out ye lads for them thar' armed wid twisted barrels!

 

[springfield art]

Watch out ye lads for them thar' armed wid twisted barrels!

View attachment 148355

Watch out ye lads for them thar' armed wid twisted barrels!

View attachment 148355

Neat-o quote! A local radio commentator mentioned today, when the Founders placed their signatures on the Declaration, they knew they were to be hunted by the Crown....they knew what they were doing when they placed the 2nd Amend in the Constitution.

 

[ord sgt]

British officers were encouraged to make out a last will and testimony before shipping out for the colonies. They knew they would be targeted.

 

[springfield art]

Our local radio station's trivia of the day is, which is best movie for the 4th of July? The "winner" was "The Patriot" !

 

[appalichian hunter]

Yepper take out the leadership first.

 

[Tumbledown]

The artist, Ethan Yazel, has prints and decals available here on Etsy.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
That is a great quote and I've heard it many times from my brother who is a member of Morgan's Rifle Company in the Brigade of the American Revolution. However, consider that Washington did not want any more "riflemen" after the first year of the war. He wanted troops armed with muskets and bayonets. The British learned very quickly how to combat the riflemen using the German jaegers and teamwork. That quote is from 1775 when riflemen were picking off British soldiers holed up in Boston. It was before they ever really faced riflemen in battle and the fear of them diminished considerably thereafter. Moreover, it wasn't riflemen who picked off British officers at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill. Focusing on officers was a general American practice.

dave

 

[Fitzhugh Williams]

Very well put. I wish more of the public attending events could hear this. But it doesn't fit the rhetoric of those in charge.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Hi,
That is a great quote and I've heard it many times from my brother who is a member of Morgan's Rifle Company in the Brigade of the American Revolution. However, consider that Washington did not want any more "riflemen" after the first year of the war. He wanted troops armed with muskets and bayonets. The British learned very quickly how to combat the riflemen using the German jaegers and teamwork. That quote is from 1775 when riflemen were picking off British soldiers holed up in Boston. It was before they ever really faced riflemen in battle and the fear of them diminished considerably thereafter. Moreover, it wasn't riflemen who picked off British officers at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill. Focusing on officers was a general American practice.

dave

Dave
It pains me, but I have to disagree with you. A biography of George Washington that I read (have to search my many books to see if I still have) spent some time describing how much George liked the 'indian style' of fighting using riflemen. This was not so much a 'sniping' style as it was a fast moving attack. e.g. sneak up-shoot-run to another tree and reload-shoot again and keep moving. Also, it is my understanding the German jaegers, even though they were using rifles, fought in mass confrontations, European style, similar to the musketeers and did not take advantage their rifle might have given them.

 

[tenngun]

We like to remember us as a nation of rifleman. When the facts are it was musket men that in most cases gave us victory during the war.
I am put in mind also of the battle of New Orleans where most of the ‘Kentucky Rifles’ ended up shooting muskets and locally procured fusils in the fight
We should keep in mind a few facts. Rifles were effective enough that it drove England to develop military rifles. A few years later Napoleon poo-pooed rifles and the French made little use of them.
He never faced Americans. And while the English/Germans won oven Napoleon with muskets, I wonder if just enough of an edge came from what was even then light use of rifles.
Here in America muskets played THE roll on the army. But I wonder how Saratoga would have played out with out rifleman

 

[ronaldrothb49]

Hi,
That is a great quote and I've heard it many times from my brother who is a member of Morgan's Rifle Company in the Brigade of the American Revolution. However, consider that Washington did not want any more "riflemen" after the first year of the war. He wanted troops armed with muskets and bayonets. The British learned very quickly how to combat the riflemen using the German jaegers and teamwork. That quote is from 1775 when riflemen were picking off British soldiers holed up in Boston. It was before they ever really faced riflemen in battle and the fear of them diminished considerably thereafter. Moreover, it wasn't riflemen who picked off British officers at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill. Focusing on officers was a general American practice.

dave

Odd statement considering Washington commissioned Daniel Morgan to raise the Corps of riflemen in 1777

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Here is a link to a paper discussing the riflemen.
https://www.americanrevolution.org/riflemen.phpAs an added bonus here is a link to the story of Timothy Murphy.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/0...thy-murphy-and-the-power-of-the-written-word/If you want to know how the Jaegers fought, please read the diaries of Johann Ewald.
dave

 

[smoothshooter]

Dave
It pains me, but I have to disagree with you. A biography of George Washington that I read (have to search my many books to see if I still have) spent some time describing how much George liked the 'indian style' of fighting using riflemen. This was not so much a 'sniping' style as it was a fast moving attack. e.g. sneak up-shoot-run to another tree and reload-shoot again and keep moving. Also, it is my understanding the German jaegers, even though they were using rifles, fought in mass confrontations, European style, similar to the musketeers and did not take advantage their rifle might have given them.

IIRC, Washington generally liked the shooting and tactics of the frontier riflemen, but their general lack of discipline and an annoying habit of pretty much doing as they pleased when they pleased nearly drove him crazy at times. To the point that he grew to view them as more trouble than they were worth most of the time.

 

[smoothshooter]

Odd statement considering Washington commissioned Daniel Morgan to raise the Corps of riflemen in 1777

The American army needed bodies.
If some of those bodies came with a rifle attached and decent marksmanship skills, so much the better.

 

[Rifleman1776]

IIRC, Washington generally liked the shooting and tactics of the frontier riflemen, but their general lack of discipline and an annoying habit of pretty much doing as they pleased when they pleased nearly drove him crazy at times.

I am sure that is true. But, still, they were an effective fighting force, albeit of a different style than the European mass of men facing off.

 

[smoothshooter]

The American army needed bodies.
If some of those bodies came with a rifle attached and decent marksmanship skills, so much the better.
[/QUOTE

Odd statement considering Washington commissioned Daniel Morgan to raise the Corps of riflemen in 1777

That was pretty early in the war, before Washington and other officers had much experience dealing with them in a disciplined military environment.
Almost every actual victory the Americans had was accomplished using the same infantry tactics as the British.

On a side note, does anyone reading this know that Benjamin Franklin offered to pay the Crown and the British East India Company what would be several million dollars in current money (adjusted for inflation) for the tea dumped in Boston Harbor to smooth things over between the British and Americans?
While I am glad we separated from Britain, in a lot of ways Americans had few valid reasons to do so when they did. England pretty much bankrupted themselves fighting the French & Indian War a few years before, with the Americans being the primary beneficiaries of England’s victory and having the highest standard of living of any country in the world.
It was not wrong for the Americans to be expected to pay a little more in taxes to help cover some of the costs, since the tax rate here was much lower than what most Europeans paid.

Excuse me now while I put on my flame retardant suit . . . .

 

[Colonial Boy]

I once read an account of a captured American rifleman being taken to London, where some bright spark arranged for him to demonstrare his skill with the rifle in public.
Having been put on his honour, he fired at a figure target at 300 yards, he scored sufficient hits for the chronicler to remark that his demp had a negative effect on recruiting,

Maybe someone else has seen this.

 

[Tumbledown]

It wasn't the taxes, per se. It was the arbitrary manner in which they were levied. The Colonists were increasingly beeing treated as a revenue source for England. Coupled with the lack of hard cash in circulation, it made those taxes both politically unpopular and a financial burden.

As for Americans having few valid reasons to separate, it wasn't just over those taxes. Things escalated quickly. Local representative governments were dissolved. Judges and governors were appointed and funded by the king and parliament, calling into question their bias and loyalties. The stationing of troops to enforce royal decrees was alarming, and their use in attempts to disarm colonists "for their own safety" clearly demonstrated to the colonists they were considered subjects of the Crown.

We disagreed.

 

[nchawkeye]

The problem was, not every leader knew how to use Riflemen...

Morgan did at Saratoga, this is the battle that convinced France that we had a chance...

The over the mountain men did at Kings Mountain...Not only did they win, they resupplied with what arms the Loyalist militia had, took out Patrick Ferguson and this battle helped recruit more Patriots...

Morgan knew how to used them at Cowpens, once again giving the Patriots not only more supplies but boosting their moral...

Nathaniel Green, through Morgan knew how to used Riflemen at Guilford Courthouse...Cornwalis lost 25% of his fighting force, used up his supplies and headed to the coast to resupply...He ended up in Yorktown, surrendered and the rest, is history....

So, take Rifles out of these key battles, with the fighting spirit of the Scot-Irish and the outcome could have been very different...

 

[smoothshooter]

It wasn't the taxes, per se. It was the arbitrary manner in which they were levied. The Colonists were increasingly beeing treated as a revenue source for England. Coupled with the lack of hard cash in circulation, it made those taxes both politically unpopular and a financial burden.

As for Americans having few valid reasons to separate, it wasn't just over those taxes. Things escalated quickly. Local representative governments were dissolved. Judges and governors were appointed and funded by the king and parliament, calling into question their bias and loyalties. The stationing of troops to enforce royal decrees was alarming, and their use in attempts to disarm colonists "for their own safety" clearly demonstrated to the colonists they were considered subjects of the Crown.

We disagreed.

I am aware of the other issues you mention. There were many bad policies enacted by the British government that had been fanning the flames for years.
Britain piddled away most of their North American empire through mis-management and ineptitude.