Historical use of powder measures

[George]

In searching for documentation of the use of cane for measures I found wood, bone, antler, tin, iron, brass+wood. No cane, so far. If anyone finds that one, please post.

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

Not exactly documentation Spence, but you're not alone in your thinking. :grin:

http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2013/07/antique-powder-horn-with-cane-powder.html

 

[MSK]

Hmmm: That sure looks like the one with the lanyard holes; you have to be correct about that. It was I who thought those were the same as the plain lead cups, so mea culpa. The plain cups are indeed widely thought of as powder measures. Not sure how much they held.

My apologies on the former.

Smollett

 

[Artificer]

For what it's worth, writing in _General George Hanger to all Sportsmen, Farmers, and Gamekeepers_ in 1814, but describing his experiences in the colonies during the AWI, Gen. George Hanger had this to say about powder measures:

"I will next tell you how they judge what quantity of powder is necessary for their rifles, on active service: for shooting deer, &c. in peaceable times, they never put in more powder than is contained in a woman’s thimble. They take the horn of a deer, make several trials with a ball, always on the powder, and when, by each time increasing the quantity of powder, they find the rifle rather throws back, that is to say, has a recoiling motion, they draw off a small quantity of the powder, cut the horn off, and use it for the actual service before an enemy."

Spence

To me, this is one of the most inexplicable period quotes.

I realize the description of a thimble of powder is more figurative and a common term by the early 19th century to which most people could relate about the quantity of black powder.

What I don’t understand in this quote is how what we would consider to be “felt recoil” was considered a serious indicator of a good powder charge? Different bore sizes and weights of rifles would give different amounts of recoil with the same powder charges then as now. I just cannot believe that they did not realize different powder charges gave different levels of accuracy in the gun. I wonder if General Hanger saw the rifle shooters trying different amounts of powder for accuracy and then tried to describe it in a way that “Non Shooters” might understand, rather than what was really going on?

Gus

 

[nchawkeye]

With slow, deep cut rifling there isn't much difference in powder charges as far as hunting accuracy...We carry this accuracy thing way too far...

In my .54 flinter I have used 50-120 grains of powder and within 50 yards any had plenty of accuracy to kill deer, the main difference was elevation...

 

[Zonie]

Interesting.

The George Hanger that comes up with a Google search was never a General.

He was of course, British and at one time was among other ranks a lieutenant, a captain, and a lieutenant-colonel, all bought and paid for by himself from 1776-1795.

He seems to have been involved in several literary feuds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hanger,_4th_Baron_Coleraine

It seems in 1816, he wrote a book titled,
"General George Hanger, to All Sportsmen, Farmers, and Gamekeepers"

Although I didn't find anything about the source of the title, it seems he may have promoted himself with his pen rather than with his wallet.

In any case, IMO, it would be expected for a British officer to belittle the people he had fought against.
In this case, the Americans took the brunt of his written attacks, snidely suggesting that we used underpowered charges in our rifles.

 

[Brokennock]

I do seem to remember you having documentation for the use of a pipe bowl as a measure.

 

[George]

The description of a pipe as powder and shot measure was by Thomas Page, in London, 1767, in _The art of shooting flying:_.

"...and it is a common practice in this country to load with a pipe bowl of powder and a bowl and a half of shot;"

Spence

 

[Brokennock]

Thanks. You never cease to amaze me with your powers of recollection and documentation. You are the Google of the 18th century shooter.

 

[tenngun]

Heard this story, cant vouch for its accuracy, but makes sense.?? Apostles we think of the twelve, but saint Paul was also an apostle, or saints Patrick and Boniface. We can translate apostle as missionary, but the most perfect is 'sent forth one' or 'sent on a mission'. The apostles were the ones to be sent forth, they were the shooters missionarys. Sometimes they had a dark humor back then, maces and frails called holy water sprinklers, or small daggers the perri adieu,good bye knife.

 

[Artificer]

Zonie,


With sincere respect toward you, I think you may be judging Hanger a bit harshly. Actually, it seems he was very impressed with the accuracy of the American Long Rifle in the AWI. Some sources state prior to the AWI that he was one of the better British Rifle shots who fought here in the AWI, which makes the current quote we are discussing more inexplicable to me.

While a Major in Tarleton's Legion in South Carolina during the AWI, he wrote the following:

"I never in my life saw better rifles (or men who shot better) than those made in America: they are chiefly made in Lancaster, and two or three neighboring towns in that vicinity, in Pennsylvania. The barrels weigh about six pounds two or three ounces, and carry a ball no larger than thirty-six to the pound; at least I never saw one of a larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds. I am not going to relate any thing respecting the American war; but to mention one instance, as a proof of most excellent skill of an American rifleman. If any man shew me an instance of better shooting, I will stand corrected.

Colonel, now General Tartleton, and myself, were standing a few yards out of a wood, observing the situation of a part of the enemy which we intended to attack. There was a rivulet in the enemy's front, and a mill on it, to which we stood directly with our horses' heads fronting, observing their motions. It was an absolute plain field between us and the mill; not so much as a single bush on it. Our orderly-bugle stood behind us, about three yards, but with his horse's side to our horses' tails. A rifle-man passed over the mill-dam, evidently observing two officers, and laid himself down on his belly; for, in such positions, they always lie, to take a good shot at a long distance. He took a deliberate and cool shot at my friend, at me, and the bugle-horn man. (I have passed several times over this ground, and ever observed it with the greatest attention; and I can positively assert that the distance he fired from, at us, was full four hundred yards). Now, observe how well this fellow shot. It was in the month of August, and not a breath of wind was stirring. Colonel Tartleton's horse and mine, I am certain, were not anything like two feet apart; for we were in close consultation, how we should attack with our troops, which laid 300 yards in the wood, and could not be perceived by the enemy. A rifle-ball passed between him and me; looking directly to the mill, I observed the flash of the powder. l said to my friend, "I think we had better move, or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, shortly, amusing themselves at our expence. "The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle horn man, behind us, and directly central, jumped off his horse, and said, "Sir, my horse is shot." The horse staggered, fell down, and died. He was shot directly behind the fore-leg, near to the heart, at least where the great blood-vessels lie, which lead to the heart. He took the saddle and bridle off, went into the wood, and got another horse. We had a number of spare horses, led by ***** lads."

Gus

 

[Artificer]

With slow, deep cut rifling there isn't much difference in powder charges as far as hunting accuracy...We carry this accuracy thing way too far...

In my .54 flinter I have used 50-120 grains of powder and within 50 yards any had plenty of accuracy to kill deer, the main difference was elevation...

I certainly agree with you when firing at only 50 yards and considering the kill zone of a deer is 8 to 10 inches in diameter.

However during the AWI, it seems American Riflemen were reported to hold tighter groups than that at 150 to 200 yards and one does not get that kind of accuracy without having a good powder charge for his rifle/ball/patch; along with skill at eyeball measuring distance, experience shooting at those ranges, able to judge windage, etc., etc.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Although John Adams reports amazement in a letter to his wife that a company of Virginia Riflemen could shoot and hit 9x6 inch shingle at 60 yards. We would not be impressed today. At 60 yards even off hand we would expect better groups.
Looking back on a report after 200 years its easy to place too much confidence in it or doubt it too much. A four hundred yard shot??? That dropped a horse???
No matter how fast a ball was started it would slow to 200-250 fps at 400 yards. With a 36 bore about.50or smaller if a 36 bore was the biggest he had seen,would a ball be able to get through to a horses heart? The hold point with fixed sights would have to be around twenty feet or more above the target. A three man group of men a horse back would be smaller then the width of the front sight.
On the other hand what reason would there be to exaggerate. These were men who had proven their intestanil fortitude under fire, I tend to believe old solgers.
Lastly though its easier to remember the one of a kind then the mundane. :idunno:

 

[Artificer]

I have long thought the account that Hanger provided was indeed a rare, if not solitary example. Personally, I think the Rifleman was using the a spot higher in the trees behind the British Soldiers, as an aiming point. Some say the shot could have been done by lifting the Rifleman's face high off the comb and still keeping the front sight on the target.

But the point of bringing up the example is that Hanger did think highly of the accuracy of the American Rifleman.

The fact that Hanger was also a known Rifle Shooter in England prior to coming over here, makes the quote about "felt recoil" being important to American Rifleman, inexplicable to me other than trying to explain it to people who knew little or nothing about accurate shooting.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

At that time people were only begining to suspect how poor of a projectile that s ball was. When Lyman came out with the ballistic book I was shocked to see the results, this was in the early 80s and it took me a long time to believe it myself. They had little reason to believe increased powder didn't equal increased power down range.
Of corse 'feeling the recoil' could mean different things to different people. A good blacksmith can tell by the color of the steel when it's fit to work and do certain jobs, it all just looks red to me.
We do note how our gun feels, like a lovers kiss we know our guns. So a shooter loading to what it felt like is not beyond the pale.

 

[MSK]

This past Saturday morning I spent some time with Phil Eckert who is in charge of the tinware and firearms collections at Old Sturbridge Village in rural Central MA. Phil is also the village tin maker. He made me a historically correct tin measure from hot dip tin (not modern electroplate). Both tin and copper measures were regularly used in the early 19th century.

]Link[/url]

Smollett

 

[jbwilliams3]

I have a couple of hot dip tin measures from Hot Dip Tin (go figure). Excellent outfit.

Also, I’m sure this has been discussed at length concerning the scene from the Revenant where Glass loads directly from the horn”¦ Personally, I had no problem with that scene. It’s probably what some of us would do in a life-or-death scenario. Safety goes out the window. Also notice he loads shot into his rifle. That would be akin to spitting a ball down the barrel and loading while running, etc. Mark Baker taught Daniel Day-Lewis to load directly from the horn when loading on the run (you have to know approximately how much powder departs your horn when tipping it for 1 or 2 seconds or so). This was during the filming of the Last of the Mohicans. In fact, in the long-form essay he wrote on the experience, he refused to discuss the technique at length because of its inherent risks (he didn’t want anyone trying to replicate it).

 

[MSK]

I wonder if the powder measure was thought of simply as just a measure and not a safety device (beyond the risks associated with an excessive powder charge). Most horns weren't fitted with measuring spouts, ergo the need for a measure. There are indeed many 19th century accounts of shooters getting maimed and killed by exploding flasks, presumably with measured cutoff spouts.

Smollett

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I was tooling around in the Anne S.K. Brown military art collection online and found a German image of "sharp shooters" vintage 1746 and the fellow in the center seems to have a measure hanging left of his tiny knife. Note the "apostle" shaped powder containers on two of the men.

Sharf-Scheutzen

LD

 

[coloradoclyde]

Why are two of the men carrying keys in identical fashion?