How did American forces reload in battle?

[Tumbledown]

To say that hunting rifles are not suitable for warfare is worse than conjecture.

Generally, they are not. Slow to load, hard to clean, and unless you hit vitals, far less effective than military muskets.

Your positions on their widespread use is unfounded.

 

[Desert Dawg]

this may have been covered. In which case I apologize. In the heat of battle how did one reload with a bayonet mounted?

Blow down the barrel.

 

[stephenprops1]

This is all pure conjecture and does not fit the historical record.

I will add this; I was in the military, spent many years in the corporate world, and a few years in academia. I have seen many official reports and records. They were not always 100% accurate or inclusive.

 

[stephenprops1]

There is a lot of fiction in this post!
Calibers of 18thC rifles tended to be over .40 caliber.
The European calibers were developed over centuries of military gun development and not because of " fumbling with cartridges", in fact cartridges were not even developed until the 1700s.
Most engagements were not fought in " leafy woods and heavy brush."
Colonists of all types fought from townsmen to farmers to back country men.
There were no "pea-shooter caliber smooth and rifled" muzzleloader firearms used by the militia, state or Continental troops. Types of firearms were specified by the various state militia and Congressional laws.
Casualties on both sides were horrific depending upon the particular engagement. Large lead balls smashing through clothing, flesh, and bone would cause gruesome wounds or death at close range .

In this post you state that cartridges were not developed until the 1700's. I beg to differ. (I assume you mean paper cartridges.) The Matchlock musket came about around 1475, or so. Very shortly after that the Musketeers were using speed loaders and paper cartridges.

 

[smoothshooter]

Generally, they are not. Slow to load, hard to clean, and unless you hit vitals, far less effective than military muskets.

Your positions on their widespread use is unfounded.

You have to define the term “widespread” Are you talking geographic areas or quantities?
I did not say rifles were necessarily the best choice. Not being bayonet compatible was seen as another problem. Nor were they a high percentage of the weapons used.
I will say that the farther into the interior military operations took place, the more likely hunting rifles in all calibers were used.
An experienced rifle shooter can be very effective. Using a looser ball and patch combination speeds up the loading process some. Omitting use of a patch altogether for close range work speeds things up even more.
A skilled rifleman does not have to fire as many shots per minute as a musket man to cause the same number of enemy casualties.
British soldiers and officers of all ranks feared riflemen for a reason.

 

[smoothshooter]

this may have been covered. In which case I apologize. In the heat of battle how did one reload with a bayonet mounted?

The bayonet blade is offset to one side to give clearance for the shooter’s hand manipulating the ramrod.
But a mounted bayonet can slow down the reloading process some.

 

[Mike in FL]

You're assuming that most militiamen were riflemen. On the east coast a smoothbore would have been more practical to have on hand because of the capability of handling shot. A rifleman would have made up some paper cartridges for quick loading when danger was close and accuracy was less important.

While true about smoothbores, I'm not sure their use was abundant relative to rifles. But you make a good point.

 

[Coinneach]

this may have been covered. In which case I apologize. In the heat of battle how did one reload with a bayonet mounted?

I'd say carefully.

 

[WalnutRed]

While true about smoothbores, I'm not sure their use was abundant relative to rifles. But you make a good point.

I've seen documentation indicating that carrying premade paper cartridges' was SOP for the British troops issued the Pattern 1776 rifle. The rifle was in carbine caliber, rather than musket caliber. In addition to using patched round balls in a Danger Close situation the soldier could load the standard carbine paper cartridges'. Obviously they lost some accuracy but at less than 50 yds. I don't think it mattered. If the Brits knew to do this I don't see why the Colonists wouldn't use the same technique.

 

[sturmkatze]

State and Continental troops would have used the type and general caliber of standard Infantry guidelines.
In SOME militia units from backwoods areas, and irregulars, the guns and calibers would have been more of a manure shoot, at least until enough muskets were purchased or captured to achieve some semblance of standardization. Some units like Morgan’s riflemen, never gave up their rifles as far as I know. The Continental Congress and various State Legislatures were strapped for cash a big part of the time, which was a serious hindrance to arms standardization. Especially early in the war.

There are those who would have us believe that no “hunting rifle “ was ever fired, not even once, at a British, German, or Loyalist soldier by any American fighter in America.

How about some footnotes?

 

[sturmkatze]

I agree that rifles “tended “ to be over .40 in that time period. But that does not mean they all were. It is just human nature ( that never changes ) that some shooters wanted even smaller than .40 caliber rifles for reason of economy of powder and lead, and the ease of being able to carry enough ammunition to last for months that did not weigh an excessive amount.

You are assuming. There’s a tendency to do that in the hobby. Prove your statement.

 

[Loren Rytter]

Snipers have use sporting rifles for more than 100 years. Including right now.

 

[nchawkeye]

Some of you gentlemen should back up and read up on Kings Mountain, Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse...Each of these battles had a significant amount of rifles and men who knew how to use them..

This conversation has gone round and round, with few historical references...There were dozens of battles fought in SC and NC during the Revolution, with militia...Look at the Battle of Moores Creek Bridge, the Battle of Lindsey's Mill and the Battle of Ramsours Mill, just to name a few...

Sure when you look at Montmouth, Trenton, Princeton the majority of soldiers involved were Continentals, armed with muskets...But once the British started their Southern Campaign, they were fighting militia as well as Continentals...So, where did they get their firearms, either battle field pickups or they brought what they had...Morgans strategy at Cowpens and later Greene's at Guilford had riflemen set up as the first two lines of defense...At Kings Mountain, the Over the Mountain men brought their rifles to the battle...At Saratoga, Morgan had his 500 riflemen to snipe and harass the British, no they did not stand their and exchange volleys with the British...That would have been suicide, they took their shots and then backed off, to fight another day...Morgan knew how to use riflemen effectively, the partisan fighters knew how to use them as well...Most of the American generals were still trying to fight the European way, this kept them from being creative enough to change their tactics.

 

[Tumbledown]

You have to define the term “widespread” Are you talking geographic areas or quantities?

Both. You have implied throughout your posts rifles were used in many battles and in large numbers.

I will say that the farther into the interior military operations took place, the more likely hunting rifles in all calibers were used.

All you have done throughout your posts is speculate. There is no place for that in historical discussions.

 

[Tumbledown]

Some of you gentlemen should back up and read up on Kings Mountain, Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse...Each of these battles had a significant amount of rifles and men who knew how to use them..

Yes, as organized units, not as walk-on militia.

This conversation has gone round and round, with few historical references...There were dozens of battles fought in SC and NC during the Revolution, with militia...Look at the Battle of Moores Creek Bridge, the Battle of Lindsey's Mill and the Battle of Ramsours Mill, just to name a few...

Sure when you look at Montmouth, Trenton, Princeton the majority of soldiers involved were Continentals, armed with muskets...But once the British started their Southern Campaign, they were fighting militia as well as Continentals...

There were lots of militia in the northern battles as well. Many who had started under short-term militia enlistments later signed on for the duration.

So, where did they get their firearms, either battle field pickups or they brought what they had...

An assumption.

Morgans strategy at Cowpens and later Greene's at Guilford had riflemen set up as the first two lines of defense...At Kings Mountain, the Over the Mountain men brought their rifles to the battle...At Saratoga, Morgan had his 500 riflemen to snipe and harass the British, no they did not stand their and exchange volleys with the British...That would have been suicide, they took their shots and then backed off, to fight another day...Morgan knew how to use riflemen effectively, the partisan fighters knew how to use them as well...Most of the American generals were still trying to fight the European way, this kept them from being creative enough to change their tactics.

Not true. The European method was destruction and domination of the enemy, while American commanders from Washington on down learned very early on they could not outright beat the British. The Americans fought to inflict damage and prolong the war to the point the British could not sustain their army.

Cornwallis himself learned to change tactics when he burned his baggage and went light infantry. Had he received reinforcements at Yorktown in a timely manner, things might have been different, but we got him bottled up before that could happen.

 

[Ohio Rusty]

Here is an 18th century first person narrative that in the heat of battle with the indians at the Ohio Big Bottom massacre, the settler used his hand to measure the powder.
Ohio Rusty ><>

 

[smoothshooter]

Both. You have implied throughout your posts rifles were used in many battles and in large numbers.


All you have done throughout your posts is speculate. There is no place for that in historical discussions.

Speculation often precedes enlightenment.

 

[smoothshooter]

You are assuming. There’s a tendency to do that in the hobby. Prove your statement.

LOL!
This is great!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I agree that rifles “tended “ to be over .40 in that time period. But that does not mean they all were. It is just human nature ( that never changes ) that some shooters wanted even smaller than .40 caliber rifles for reason of economy of powder and lead, and the ease of being able to carry enough ammunition to last for months that did not weigh an excessive amount.

Again we come up against a variation of "well they had it so they must have used it" or its variation, "they could've done it so they must have done it". argument. However, time and time again, this we find is not so. Sometimes one does find an eye witness account that shows what WAS done, and perhaps why additional was not...,

"A well grown boy, at the age of twelve or thirteen years, was furnished with a small [caliber] rifle and shot pouch. He then became a fort soldier, and had his port hole assigned him. Hunting squirrels, turkeys and raccoons soon made him expert in the use of his gun."
Doddridge

So here we find that small calibers were given to boys for use on small game, and while they did have a post at a fort, they were not soldiers but thought of as "fort soldiers".

"Rifles of former times, were different from those of modern date; few of them carried more than forty-five bullets to the pound. Bullets of a less size were not thought sufficiently heavy for hunting [large game] or war." Doddridge

Here the eye witness author clarifies for us, that rifles were thought of as unsuited to war when smaller than about .480-.470 caliber. UNLESS the enemy was attacking a fort, where the enemy would come up against youngsters using the smaller caliber rifles. NOTE, the eye witness makes a very clear distinction between what boys were using and what was used for "warfare". There is no reason to think that among the areas where rifles were found, which were NOT universally encountered among all of the colonies, that this bias toward rifles close to .50 caliber as the smallest used for large game and offensive combat was the norm.

"Shooting at marks was a common diversion among the men, when their stock of ammunition would allow it ; this, however, was far from being always the case. The present mode of shooting off hand was not then in practice. This mode was not considered as any trial of the value of a gun ; nor, indeed, as much of a test of the skill of a marksman." Joseph Doddridge Notes on the settlement and Indian wars of the western parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania, from 1763 to 1783

Here is further proof of the idea that simply because one could one did not necessarily do..., WE shoot at targets and so did they, but they sometimes could not because of the lack of ammo, so much for the idea that they carried the small caliber weapons to thus have more shots per pound, and..., while we do use the "offhand" position aka "standing unsupported", back then they did not use it and thought it didn't prove marksmanship. So the idea came into vogue later, but the eye witness, Mr. Doddridge, explains that during the scope time covered for his work, it was not used. They could've easily done so... but did not.

LD

​

 

[oreclan]

I agree that rifles “tended “ to be over .40 in that time period. But that does not mean they all were. It is just human nature ( that never changes ) that some shooters wanted even smaller than .40 caliber rifles for reason of economy of powder and lead, and the ease of being able to carry enough ammunition to last for months that did not weigh an excessive amount.

Fiction! There are surveys of surviving rifles (All we have to rely on.) that support larger calibers being used in the rifle companies while they existed.