fusils on the plains

[asbrown]

I often wonder if the reverse of Dans supposition is not the more accurate. It's possible the "riflemen"of the west needed the rifle not because the distances were greater but because they were poor stalkers who couldn't get close enough to take a shot with a bow or smoothbore. The relative lack of uneven terrain and trees to hide behind requires more skill and patience in the pursuit of big game than it did back in the heavily wooded east. And we know that the mountain men were eastern transplants not natives to the area. Sooooooo, what say you? :stir:

 

[Rifleman1776]

Rifleman do you know the cost of a rifle from this period ,not a indian trade jobby but a middrange PENN. RIFLE.

Sorry, not an area I have ever concerned myself with. I'm sure I have seen references but it didn't stick in the noggin.

 

[poordevil]

We think that the boys and young men who went to the mountains took their guns from home and carried them for their entire carrier as Mt Men. But we read about Mt men getting robbed by Indians all the time, horse wrecks and other losses. Also my understanding from reading is that the companies provided the guns to the trappers as they did the traps and other equipment to do the job the men were hired to do. That is where all those rifles ordered by the companies went.

 

[LaBonte]

The relative lack of uneven terrain and trees to hide behind requires more skill and patience in the pursuit of big game than it did back in the heavily wooded east. And we know that the mountain men were eastern transplants not natives to the area. Sooooooo, what say you? :stir:

You have a mistaken image of the west - country out here varies considerably and even on the plains there is plenty of uneven terrains, plus most of the beaver trapping was done in the foothills, and mountains where the majority of the beaver were. A lot of hunting was also done along streams and rivers in wooded areas.

here's some pictures of the foothills I live in in SW Colorado - it's 6500' ASL the river is the Animas - the field across the river is a "modern" hayfield. This is pretty typical foothills terrain in much of the Rocky Mtns and Great Basin
This looking towards the SE

Looking north - the snow capped peaks in the back ground (about 60 miles away as the crow flies) are the San Juans which go up to 14,000 ft. and between about 7500' and 9500' (treeline) the country there is mostly pine and aspen forest.

 

[George]

I've killed several mule deer in northeastern Nevada, using a .54 Hawken, but there wasn't a one of them I couldn't have taken using my flintlock smoothbore. I prepared myself for shots in the 100-125 yard range because of all the talk I had heard about long shots in the wide open west, but the longest I took was 80 yards, most were 20-50 yards. This was at 10,000-11,000 feet and in an arid region, but not very different from hunting in the wet lowlands of Kentucky when you get down to it. There was always cover, somewhere, and that's where the game was. Each time I hunted it was with friends all using various BP rifles, and we never had any problem getting close enough.

I'm sure there are areas of the west where long shots are a requirement, but there are also many areas where a fusil would serve you well. Hunters can get it done. :haha:

Spence

 

[Carteret Kid]

I can see having a NW trade smoothy as a back up for the mountain rifle. The NW fusils were already available in the fur trade supply train.
It would be good to have a bird shot capable gun to vary your diet in the bush. For defense having a second shot at low cost would be practical, even if it is at short range.
I would rather have a fusil than a pistol in the wild.

 

[asbrown]

Thanks for your posts LaBonte and Spence. Unfortunately for me my view of the west was from the cab of a truck on the interstate. But I gave it more thought and came up with this. Setting aside fort/market hunters, these mtn. men were trappers right? Primary concern was running the trap line. Then it seems to follow that a lot of hunting would be more like(hey, look, an elk, let me drop my plews and shoot it) Those type of happenstance kills would be a good reason for the longer range of a rifle, right? :idunno:
kinda like why I carry a smoothbore pistol loaded with 6shot while deer hunting, the unlucky squirrel who stumbles on my blind ends up in the pot.

 

[Dphar]

I've killed several mule deer in northeastern Nevada, using a .54 Hawken, but there wasn't a one of them I couldn't have taken using my flintlock smoothbore. I prepared myself for shots in the 100-125 yard range because of all the talk I had heard about long shots in the wide open west, but the longest I took was 80 yards, most were 20-50 yards. This was at 10,000-11,000 feet and in an arid region, but not very different from hunting in the wet lowlands of Kentucky when you get down to it. There was always cover, somewhere, and that's where the game was. Each time I hunted it was with friends all using various BP rifles, and we never had any problem getting close enough.

I'm sure there are areas of the west where long shots are a requirement, but there are also many areas where a fusil would serve you well. Hunters can get it done. :haha:

Spence

Ever hunt Antelope? The last three deer I killed averaged about 50 yards or less. But one, the mule deer, was 105. I have killed both deer and antelope at 140-150 yards with 50-54 caliber rifles.
Its not the mountains that are the real challenge in 1830, its the 1000 miles of open country and the HOSTILES that pose the real problem. Hunting is just one part of the equation. You have to ask. "If I am in country like this, no cover other than terrain, a man on a horse can be seen for miles and miles, what would I rather have to defend my life? A rifle that will kill a man or beast at 200 or a smoothbore that is not that much better than a bow?"

I have killed a couple of deer in open areas at 40 yards or so. But most shots are about 100 and I sight my rifles for 120-130. Jim Bridger's Hawken in the Helena Museum is sighted for about 150. Yeah I KNOW this. I know people that have actually shot the rifle. It did not come up in a conversation until I mentioned that the front sight was pretty low and the rifle had to be sighted for fairly long range. My friend then said "Funny you should mention that". That it was shot in modern times is documented in an issue of the Buckskin Report Magazine... If he were making close range shots why would the rifle be sighted so as to strike well above line of sight at just over 100 yards?

The previous photos with the trees? There is a good chance NONE or few of these were there in 1830. The American west has changed to a great degree. Photos taken during the Custer Expedition to the Black Hills cannot be reproduced today because the views are blocked by masses of grown Lodgepole Pine and other trees and shrubs.
So the West of today is not the West of Lewis and Clark (who used rifles almost exclusively for hunting) or Osborne Russell. The native people no longer burn off large areas of grass, fires that DO start are put out as soon as possible in most cases. Grass fires on the prairies are generally stopped by firefighters and roads rather than running for 100+ miles and up onto the mountain slopes to burn off timber.
Yes, lots of people used smoothbores. But for the WHITES in the West especially the smoothbore was not the best choice unless the owners eyesight was so bad that they could not shoot accurately. Then, in the west or much of anyplace else, they would need others to protect and feed them for the most part. Smoothbores have their uses. But their utility on the great plains or even in the east, is greatly overrated even for war as the natives and frontiersmen fought. This is documented back to the 1750s-60s when fears generated by the adoption of the rifle by eastern tribes by the 1740s started to surface due to the manner in which the natives made war. Also there were concerns that the rifle's economy hurt trade. The rifle used less powder and lead than the "Trader" and far less than the Musket. This is also documented to the mid-18th c.
So while there were a lot of trade guns and a few muskets in the west. They were secondary arms for the trappers, even the eastern native trappers.
There is a Northwest Gun the belonged to Tecumseh and its being copied by people and much is made of it. But the fact that he traded it away for a RIFLE is ignored for the most part.
Having hunted with a couple of smoothbores and I have a friend who tried it, again, last fall I can tell you that at ranges over 45-55 yards its borderline ethical to hunt with one due the increased probability of poor shot placement. Another thing that the smoothbore adherents would rather not mention. But it DOES happen and its best if its complete miss.

Finally, in the east where ranges are "short"... It needs to be pointed put that the natives had no qualms about fighting musket armed soldiers. But rifle armed frontiersmen were another matter and mass desertions of Indian allies in both the F&I and Revolutionary Wars occurred as the result of riflemen on the opposing side. A good account of this is the French Canadian and Native Scouts with Burgoyne at Saratoga. When Daniel Morgan arrived with his riflemen the vast majority fled back to Canada. Those that staid, according to one British officer's account "..could not be brought within sound of a rifle shot." Burgoyne was completely blinded, no tactical intelligence, nobody could/would go beyond the pickets much less far enough to spy on the Americans.

The French had some similar experiences in the F&I War where when the "long knives" from Virginia appeared the Native Americans went home to attend to their hunting and the pleading of the French had no effect.
Sure its possible to hunt with a smoothbore and kill stuff even on the prairie. But, again, hunting is not the only use of a firearm on the frontier.

Dan

 

[Rifleman1776]

what would I rather have to defend my life?

Answer: a good horse to take me the other direction as fast as possible. :haha:

As far as mule deer are concerned, I hate to disparage another mans hunting experience, or prowess. But....when I lived in Washington I was not yet a hunter. I did hike in the Cascades. We frequently came on mule deer and nearly had to walk up and kick them in the rump to get them to,get up and very slowly, walk off. Killing at ranges of ten feet would not have been difficult. As beautiful as they are, espeically the racks, I just don't see the challenge or sport in mule deer hunting.

 

[MacRob46]

what would I rather have to defend my life?

Answer: a good horse to take me the other direction as fast as possible. :haha:

As far as mule deer are concerned, I hate to disparage another mans hunting experience, or prowess. But....when I lived in Washington I was not yet a hunter. I did hike in the Cascades. We frequently came on mule deer and nearly had to walk up and kick them in the rump to get them to,get up and very slowly, walk off. Killing at ranges of ten feet would not have been difficult. As beautiful as they are, espeically the racks, I just don't see the challenge or sport in mule deer hunting.

Mule deer are not nearly as skittish as white tails. I have had the same experience with mulies in Montana. It would be easy to take one at a range that would allow the use of a smooth bore.

 

[palladius]

"Finally, in the east where ranges are "short"... It needs to be pointed put that the natives had no qualms about fighting musket armed soldiers. But rifle armed frontiersmen were another matter and mass desertions of Indian allies in both the F&I and Revolutionary Wars occurred as the result of riflemen on the opposing side.

The French had some similar experiences in the F&I War where when the "long knives" from Virginia appeared the Native Americans went home to attend to their hunting and the pleading of the French had no effect."

Ok, I am curious about this because my understanding of the F&I War is that there were few if any rifles in use on any side and none north of PA. There were concerns by the 1740s of Indians getting rifles? Where would they have gotten them when the whites didn't have them?

Yes, by the time of the Revolution there were more in use--Morgan's Riflemen as you note at the Battle of Saratoga. But even there the regulars didn't have them nor did the Vermont and NY militia who descended on Burgoyne's army. They were still a pretty specialized and rare weapon even by the Revolution. Most fighting in the wooded terrain of the east such as at Saratoga would have been close--within 50 yards and within musket range.

 

[TinStar]

I have to agree with Fusilier on this Dan. From the several books that I have read on colonial America; especially from upstate NY, there was very little if any mention of the Indians using rifles. If they were common among them I think we would have much more documentation and artifacts to back it up. And if they had fairly easy access to them; where did they come from?
I would like to see references to historical documentation in order to form a better opinion.
Aside from that I would tend to believe that smoothbores were more the norm and were used quite effectively in their limitations of range.

TinStar

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Wow folks, a lot of conjecture goin' on hyar!

wasn't the so called "blanket gun" generally a cut down fusil or NWTG, used for a coup-de-grace,

I was taught that an actual "blanet gun" were fashioned for taking one or more forts during Pontiac's War, and for no other time. They were concealed under the blankets worn by the Indians, especially by those worn by the Indian women.

Logic does indeed dictate that you are correct. Just because something has not been dug up does not mean that it wasn't used,

Ah but beware what seems logical to us in our time period is not necessarily what seemed logical back then. Classic case-n-point, lemons, black tea, and sugar all existed in Western Europe in the 18th century..., but apparently (due to the mentioning of it in journals of the time period) it was the Russian Court of Catherine the Great that started putting lemon in sugared tea instead of milk or cream.

It [the musket] is a special purpose arm as all smoothbores are and the musket only excels in linear tactics on the battle field when used against other troops also constrained by linear tactics. For hunting they are inferior unless shooting birds with bird shot on the ground or water.

While a fusil or NW gun may be inferior..., the inferiority does not preclude it use, nor does it preclude smoothbores in general being used in large numbers, perhaps equal to or in greater numbers than rifles..., even by whites.

The typical musket has about 1/3 the range and uses twice the lead of a 54 caliber rifle. The fowler is as bad its just a smaller bore generally and lighter.

Actually, a 28 gauge fusil shooting a ball uses the same amount of lead, and powder, as the .54 rifle. It is fine for shooting birds on the wing, although it does have a max effective range of about 1/3 that of the rifle.

What's needed here is a demonstration that men mounted on horseback needed to consistantly make shots at 3x the range of the fusil, not what the rifle could do, but what those out on the prarie or the mountains commonly had to do.

The natives being armed with rifles hurt trade due to the reduction in the consumption of powder and lead. As a result there was a widespread effort to prevent the natives obtaining them.

Do you have any evidence that this was the result and reason? I thought that the lack of sales of rifles to natives was in case we had to fight them. Sorta like the Russians selling tanks to other countries not quite up to the same standards as the main Russian tanks ??

When shooting a single round ball, as was the norm, using a smooth bored gun in the west for hunting to defense in the 19th c context is a great handicap that is not needed when in a survival situation.

Assuming that it's a simple choice of which to use. IF however the choice is based on availability, and also the cost of the gun vs. the rifle, you may find folks choose what they can actually buy. In some of the actual historic record listed below you might want to note the cost of the fusil or NW Gun to that of the rifles, as well as note how many rifles are listed in relation to smooth bore guns.

In the east Militia laws often required men to have an arm of regulation bore size and smooth along with requirements for a certain amount or ammunition.

I've seen lots of militia laws..., never saw any that specified a bore for the civilians' guns up through 1840. Can you provide references?

Ever hunt Antelope?

Yep, and you're right, if you're hunting with a flinter and don't have rifle, and a load and sights set for well beyond 100 yards, forget it. On the other hand, who says they HAD to hunt antelope at all? Sure it would be better if you had a rifle that you could hunt any big game in North America..., including antelopes, but for the antelope argument to be valid, you need to show how not being able to hunt them spelled doom. After all if you can't ride up to them and shoot them, then you can't ride up to them and skewer them with an arrow. So mounted Indians with the bow survived without hunting antelope and so too could the whites when armed with a fusil.

If I am in country like this, no cover other than terrain, a man on a horse can be seen for miles and miles, what would I rather have to defend my life? A rifle that will kill a man or beast at 200 or a smoothbore that is not that much better than a bow?

An excellent point if all you ever do is face a 1 on 1 encounter.

On the other hand say you see two foes at 200 yards. After all, the plain or the prarie isn't level like a football field eh? Even if you seen them and they see you farther out, you can't really shoot one of them until they reach about 200 yards eh?

So...,they see you too, and they are only armed with spears. You shoulder your rifle, and drop one. Nice shot. The remaining opponent charges you while you are reloading, and will close the distance riding on his horse in mere 10 seconds. 28 bore fusil or .54 rifle, unless you put a bare ball down the barrel, you are dead before you are reloaded. If you do bare-ball the rifle, you are no longer superior to the musket. :shocked2:

If there are three or more foes, you're dead unless you have multiple, previously loaded firearms. IF you flee, and buy time while reloading, you want the item that reloads faster..., the smoothbore. It's a lot easier to hit the opponent who is chasing you, or his horse, with a load of buckshot when riding at full gallop than a single ball.

But rifle armed frontiersmen were another matter and mass desertions of Indian allies in both the F&I and Revolutionary Wars occurred as the result of riflemen on the opposing side. A good account of this is the French Canadian and Native Scouts with Burgoyne at Saratoga. When Daniel Morgan arrived with his riflemen the vast majority fled back to Canada. Those that staid, according to one British officer's account "..could not be

Ah well lets not compare massed companies of riflemen in the AWI backed up with lines of men armed with muskets mounting bayonets with single trappers or small groups of trappers in the fur trade. To do so is rather sophomoric.

So the conjecture is that whites had rifles in large numbers compared to the Indians. Well, that might be true, it might not. We could examine what was sold at a bunch of locations and over many years during the fur trade and see what actual, factual records tell us.

Source: Fur Trade Business Records Excerpts done for this thread only...

Inventory of sundries delivered to the Northwest Company, Astoria, Columbia River, October, 1813

3410 flints
6 musket locks (ketland)
2 gun locks do.
1 keg gunpowser 25 lbs. F.G.
13 Do. Do. 325 lbs. F.G.
5 Do. Do. 112 lbs. F. R.
in kegs and cartridges 571 lbs. F. R.
2 kegs gunpowder 50 lbs. F.R.
3 Do. Do. 130 lbs. F. R.

414 lbs. musket balls
2065 lbs. bar lead
1677½ lbs. pig do.
1 cwt. 1 qr. 25 lb. patent shot
1388 lbs. buck shot


Inventory of merchandise, etc. delivered to the Northwest Company, at Okunaakan, and Point Matthews, November 22d and December 3d, 1813.

flints, gun 988
451 musket ball
460½ lbs. bar lead
65 lbs. patent shot
2 second hand guns
7 muskets and bayonets
1 old musket without ramrod
1 do.
1 second hand musket, without ramrod
2 powder horns

Inventory of merchandise, etc, delivered to the Northwest Company at Spokan House and Flat Head country, November 22d and 26th, 1813

346½ lbs. musket ball
81 lbs. bar lead
15½ lbs. patent shot
111½ lbs. buck shot
9 muskets and six bayonets

Trade List of John McKnight Partner of General Thomas James
. The expedition left late in the fall of 1822 and erected a fort in present day Blaine county Oklahoma.
1 gros gun worms
1000 gun flints
10 N.W. guns
5 kegs powder

William H. Ashley, Jedediah S. Smith, David E. Jackson, and William L. Sublette.
Articles of Agreement, July 18, 1826
Ӣ Gunpowder of the first and second quality at one dollar fifty per pound
Ӣ Lead one dollar per pound
Ӣ North West Fuzils at twenty four dollars each


Invoice of Goods taken down to the Columbia by Capt J. N. Whyeth on his Voyage to Columbia
1834

100 rifle flints
100 fusil flints

20 bar lead (per lb)
8 bar lead (per lb)

Top Pack
22 lbs powder
13 lbs lead


Invoice of Goods Remaining at Fort Hall in store uncashed 1834

173 lbs lead
2 bags 63 lbs powder
162 lbs lead
22 lbs fusil balls

20 plain fusils
10 twisted fusils
14 rifles
1 rifle


Invoice of Sundry Merchandise from the Rocky Mountain Outfit 1836

2000 gun flints
½ thousand rifle flints
2 dozen gun locks
½ dozen rifle locks
4 pairs pistols, iron
2 Am. Rifles
7 Am. Rifles
8 Hawkin Rifles
84 N.W. guns
2 bags shot
12 kegs small bar lead
32 canisters powder F
15 canisters .powder 456 F
12 half barrels .600 F Dupont
30 N.W. Guns
2 Rifles, Hawkin
80 powder horns
2 Rifles, Hawkin

Invoice of merchandise shipped on board S.B. Diana C.M. Halstead Master bound for the upper Missouri River and consigned for account and risk of upper Missouri outfit 1835

100 N.W. guns 30 to 42 inches
2 pr Octagon Brass barrel pistols
10 pr plain iron barrel pistols
1 pr super twist barrel pistols
10 Bags Shot
60 half barrels gun powder F


Invoice of Sundry Merchandise furnished Rocky Mountain Outfit 1837 under charge of Fontenelle, Fitzpatrick & Co.
2 gross gun worms
2000 gun flints
3000 rifle flints
36 N.W. Guns best quality $4.50
5 Am. Rifles steel mounted $19
10 Hawkens rifles $24
½ thousand rifle flints
12 N.W. Guns $4.50


Note that at the beginning of the Western Fur Trade, the stocking of not only musket ball, and muskets, but also buckshot and fusil ball. NOTE also the larger numbers of NW Guns vs. rifles and Hawkins, as well as the much higher prices in general for the rifles.

WHAT THEN does the above show us? Well....., not much really. SORRY. :haha:

It tells us nothing of what whites actually brought with them, nor does it tell us the ratio of the sales of guns and rifles at the trading posts or rondezvouz. There could be different and opposing reasons for the numbers of the items listed in each reference. So Dan may be correct, or might not be. I can't tell.

Basically, what has been provided shows somebody was doing a lot of smoothbore shooting in the West, during the fur trade. Was it white guys?

LD

 

[Dphar]

"Finally, in the east where ranges are "short"... It needs to be pointed put that the natives had no qualms about fighting musket armed soldiers. But rifle armed frontiersmen were another matter and mass desertions of Indian allies in both the F&I and Revolutionary Wars occurred as the result of riflemen on the opposing side.

The French had some similar experiences in the F&I War where when the "long knives" from Virginia appeared the Native Americans went home to attend to their hunting and the pleading of the French had no effect."

Ok, I am curious about this because my understanding of the F&I War is that there were few if any rifles in use on any side and none north of PA. There were concerns by the 1740s of Indians getting rifles? Where would they have gotten them when the whites didn't have them?

Yes, by the time of the Revolution there were more in use--Morgan's Riflemen as you note at the Battle of Saratoga. But even there the regulars didn't have them nor did the Vermont and NY militia who descended on Burgoyne's army. They were still a pretty specialized and rare weapon even by the Revolution. Most fighting in the wooded terrain of the east such as at Saratoga would have been close--within 50 yards and within musket range.

First assuming the whites did not have rifles in 1740 shows a lack of research. Its the mantra of the re-enactor who has not use for a rifle but the DOCUMENTATION from the time tells a far different story.
There were riflemen, 50 in a 500 man militia force, in New York in 1687 according to a letter written to the Governor of NY to the Gov. of PA. written in March of 1688. See pg 75 "British Flintlock Military Rifles" by Bailey
The natives in some areas were heavily armed with rifles by the mid-1740s documented again on page 75 Shawnees with a "...rifle, two pistols and a sabre" 1743. "...and in April 1744 a Deleware Indian, John Mussemeelin owing some skins to John Armstrong said Armstrong seized a horse from the said Mussemeelin and a riffled Gun"
The few natives, less than a dozen maybe, with Braddock were all rifle armed according to people who were there and wrote of the Expedition. So the natives around Ft Duquesne knew of the rifle. How many actually fought with the French is not known. Many professed neutrality waiting to see who won, or so I have read.
There were issue rifled "Carbines" during the New York fights in 1757. Not many but they were there and its documented.

Morgan's men did scouting and sniping against Burgoyne. They were also teamed with Dearborne's regiment of infantry during the final battle. So paired they were probably the most effective unit of the Rev-War. At Saratoga Morgan's unit killed two key officers General Fraser being the most important and were key to driving the gunners away with rifle fire and capturing the British Artillery while paired with Dearborne.
While its common to point out all the failures of the riflemen and their obnoxious behavior ect the fact remains that Rifle armed units and in battles where numbers of rifles were used the Colonists had a winning record against the British.
While the American high command was busy trying to convert the rifle regiments to musket armed infantry the BRITISH were ADDING rifles to their regiments.
That the Natives did not like going into the woods after Morgan's men arrived and started patrolling. That they fled back to Canada is a matter of historical record. Its not opinion. The range is irrelevant. It was possible to safely expose ones self at 150 yards to a man with a musket and be pretty safe. At 50 yards a good rifleman can hit an eye or an elbow or a knee. Something a musket or trade gun is not as good at. If a good rifleman got a shot at a man at 150 the man was dead. But the Northern Natives in Canada had little exposure to the rifle.

I suggest you read "Colonial Riflemen in The American Revolution" by Huddleston this scholarly work details the good and the bad associated with the rifle units, "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse details various battles and has pages of quotes from the time about the rifles, the men that used them and their dress. The relevant chapters of "British Military Flintlock Rifles" by Bailey are very important to understanding the rifle in native hands. Bailey details the use of rifles by the natives around Pennsylvania in the 1740s as well as the comments by traders, indian agents and military officers of the F&I period. Well documented with references and quotes from the time.
The problem is that a great many people only read that the various generals did not like riflemen. But these same officers were anxious to have riflemen along when they were going against the natives AFTER the Revolution. Rather than using the Riflemen as skirmishers on the flanks or as snipers they wanted them to stand on a field in a shower of musket balls. Something that a veteran of the fights on the frontier would not like doing.

Its easy to say that there were no rifles but its not factual. Rifles have been in use in America since the late 17th c at LEAST. German's began arriving in the 1720s in PA IIRC. The early records of the Moravian Gun Shop apparently show few if any smoothbore parts until the eve of the American Revolution. This from "Moravian Gun Making of the American Revolution". The Moravian's wrote down everything that cost anything to report to their benefactor.
The rifle was not nearly as rare even in the 1750s as some would prefer for their version of the 18th c. They were being made here AND imported from England and Germany.
In the 1750s Sir William Johnson writes that the people of Philadelphia shoot with rifles and seldom use small shot.
Thinking the American Longrifle suddenly sprang into being fully formed in 1776 is ludicrous. It was fully formed, brass patchbox, engraving, carving by 1770.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Dave
I have never read an account of much fighting being done horse back by the trappers. Other than Carson's duel I don't recall any. The fights Russell recounts had the trappers dismounted and usually the natives as well.
Trying to lead a pack string, manage your horse and shoot anything but a pistol at close range to any effect is virtually IMPOSSIBLE. Having done some packing and riding thats my opinion. Besides the horse makes a pretty good bullet stop.
So they got off if they could not run I would. Because you need to HIT your target, misses with a ML are REALLY bad. If you don't OR if you are alone you are likely a dead man anyway so they ran and hid if at all possible. Its pretty well documented. Its hard for one guy to fight off a war party. So they made SURE of the shots and never emptied all the weapons at once. The Plains Indians by all accounts would not likely charge a loaded rifle.

If you will read the books I have listed, Bailey specificaly, you will find the comments on the rifle using less ammunition. Also you assume that the 1750s trader was 24 bore and the rifles were 54 caliber. Both are incorrect. Most rifles in the east were smaller than 50 cal by the Rev-War. Small bore and "very small bore" are common descriptions of rifles even in the 1750s.
In the west? Rifle bores were larger usually 50 to 54. Mostly due to the ranges and the size of the animals (from a period quote from "Firearms of the American West 1803-1865"). The concerns about the Natives with rifles were not much of a concern the were not as proficient as the Eastern tribes. Many of Custers men were apparently killed or at least wounded by indirect fire with BOWS. No need to expose yourself just shoot up from behind cover and let the arrows fall into the enemies position. If the proposed victim chooses the ground well, on a flat where there is no cover from terrain within 200 yards the bow and the trade gun are useless against the rifle. This is explained in of all places "The Big Sky" by A.B. Guthrie. He knew some old timers and learned things from them.
If the attackers are horseback the victim can shoot rider or horse and get a good result.
In killing one of Pancho Villa's officers George Patton, a world class pistol shot, had been told by old timers to shoot the horse first. Patton dropped the horse and shot the Mexican next. While many shot at the guy the bullet hole was from Patton's Colt.
People need to think about what it takes to LIVE not what one wants to believe or saw in some movie.

AND if the range is short there is no speed advantage to the SB this is ALSO proven in the past. I think it was Herkimer who told his troops to have two men to a position and to keep one gun loaded to prevent close range charges. So a shot at under 50 yards with a SB that is a miss may well result in going hand to hand with the guy you shot at. If its hard to hit a small target with a musket at 40-50 yards on some peaceful range someplace doing it in combat is just that much worse.
When the natives started using longer ranged arms in the 1870s things changed in some situations. Like the "1874 Wagon Road Expedition" where they were dropping 50-70 bullets into the horse corral from long distance in one fight. These guys did what Custer did not by making SURE they did not put themselves at a disadvantage through poor choice of terrain and made the natives come to them. This is a carry over from the early 19th c trappers. ALWAYS give yourself an advantage if possible. Letting the natives, even as poor as they were with firearms at the time, get too close was a good way to end up chopped into little pieces.
Anyone who cannot see the advantage of the rifle in this context is working at NOT seeing the obvious. I suggest reading Russell's account of the Pierre's Hole fight if you think the trade gun armed native could match the rifle in the hands of a decent shot even close up.
There was another fight he details that also resulted in the trappers inflicting serious losses on the attackers with little or no loss to themselves.

Dan

 

[palladius]

Dan,

The riflemen in the Revolution I'm not disputing. I already mentioned Morgan's men at Saratoga, though as I noted the ordinary farmer responding with the militia didn't have them, only specialized units. But it's 15 years between the end of the F&I and the Revolution during which rifles may have become more common, if not prevalent.

Yes, there were a few rifles with Abercrombie in NY but only a few so I shouldn't have said none north of PA. I would be interested in hearing more about rifles in the north during the F&I if you know of them. I've never heard references to them. I knew there were some rifles in the south in the F&I and you point to a number of instances down there I was unaware of. Thanks.

I'll check out Bailey, thanks. The Huddleston book is fairly old (not to mention expensive since it's OOP) and Lacrosse's time period doesn't go before 1760. Any other references I can check out for F&I rifles?

 

[pargent]

Yes Herkimer did instruct this but he was only using ranger and lightinfantry tatics used in the 1750s. In this same campain there is the documented proof of an indian using a rife to snipe on troops in the fort , he was taken out by a regular trooper using a smooth bore ( 16 pound smoothbore ) :rotf:

 

[tenngun]

I took 1 pronghorn in wyoming about 30 miles east of fort bridger just about 30 yards maybe 35 well in musket range although it was a 54 full stock hawkin style.That was 30 years ago and I wasn't in to smoothbores at this time.But remember at the start of this thread I said we will often come up with arguments for the stuff we like and I'm as guilty as the next guy :haha:

 

[tenngun]

We also have to remember that rifles were rare enough to cause John Adamms to explait to Abigail that a rifle was a gun with threads in it.Also the people of Mass. were amazed to see the riflemen of Morans able to shoot a 1 ft squar at 60 yards.

 

[pargent]

All you will find from the F&I period is reference to English or Provincial Officers ordering and distributing rifles to their Light companies , vauge references to some Rangers with rifles personaly owned. A very dubious after action report that the French had armed their indians with rifles, based on the fire from the indians was harder then that of the British muskets (easily explained away by the known fact the french indians were armed with smaller bore guns that could drive the ball faster than the English Bess.After action revisions of English tatics showed troops spilling up to 1/2 their cartridge powder when loading fast when in the light role in flowing combat )
Foward thinking British and American officers revised the tatics for ranging , offenceive patroling and light infantry tatics this very soon counterd the Frenchand their Indian allies , all with smoothbores and the 300 rifles in the varios doc..