If I was a man living on the frontier during the revolution what would I have carried?

[French Colonial]

Provide documentation

 

[Artificer]

I've done some silhouette competing with an accurate .54 cal patched ball rifle at 150 and 200 yards. The ball even with 110 grain charge of 2F Goex is coming down like a meteor at 200 yards and the wind deflection is also more pronounced than I would have expected. I had no trouble hitting any of the steel targets up 150 yards but longer than that I was hard pressed to hit steel without some sighter shots first.

Through your own experimental archeology, you proved the reason why General Light Horse Harry Lee ordered all American Riflemen not to shoot beyond 150 yards in combat, where it is even more difficult to hit at that range.

Gus

 

[Coinneach]

1756 Daniel Pepper, the Creeks "are daily getting in to the method of using rifle guns"
Edward Shippen 'the Indians make use of rifled guns for the most part"
David Zeizberger "the Delaware Indians use no other than rifle-barrel guns"
Washington and several other commanders lamented that there were so many men showing up for the AWI with rifles and the need to reequip them with muskets.

Its all well and good to speculate and quote one off examples but to postulate that smoothbores were the predominate and most desired firearm of the frontier is IMHO incorrect.

What was the main purpose of most of the traveling/exploration of the frontier? It was land surveying and speculation. They were NOT out for a pleasant day of hunting with friends.
A secondary part of it was gathering as many deer hides, bear and bison as you could to sell upon your return to civilization. This can be proven by how many times Indians and whites stole packs of furs from each other.

The OP asked about the frontier, not a settled area, and if I am shooting bear, bison and have Indians shooting at me at rifle distances I want to be shooting a rifle gun as well.

None of your references support the prolific use of Rifled guns over Smoothbore Muskets /Fusils/ Trade guns, but there were certainly Rifled long arms among the Tribes but in what percentage compared to Smooth bores ? Thats the question.

I've read more than a few articles on Smoothbore guns of the period, and one of the quotes that comes to mind is "the Indians will have no other", again thats not to dismiss the presence of Rifles among the Tribes.

Four technical points to consider,
1. If Rifles were so prolific can it be argued that the required Cloth Patch materials were equally so ? Leather patching would have to be the last option considered, as thickness of a patch is the great variable, and jammed Ramrods in a Rifled Barrel are an unacceptable Risk; not so in a Smoothbore though where there's considerable more leeway for patching, or no patching; in addition to timely swabbing out a fouled barrel. (I've used my own urine in a pinch, and I know that was common "way back when").
2. In the case of a jammed or broken Ramrod in a Rifles barrel, did the Indians have Ramrod pullers other than a length of cordage, (less than efficient as most of us would know); and how were broken ramrods replaced quick enough ?
3. The Indian Tribes in northern regions reportedly employed Forest fighting tactics preferably from Ambush, that implies a close up effectiveness easily achievable with a Smoothbore weapon capable of being reloaded much easier and faster than a Rifled gun.
4. Ease of maintenance, a Rifled barrel requires regular cleaning as it easily fouls with a limited number of shots, whereas a Smoothbore has a longer durability and simpler cleaning process than the Rifle.

One unanswered question is, how many Rifles compared to Smoothbores were captured/ confiscated from Indian tribes once they were subjugated during and by the end of the F&I War, additionally what have achaeological sites revealed ?

In conclusion the Smoothbore has to be a far more practical Firearm in both a Survival and Forest warfare scenario, than a Rifled one. The simplicity of cleaning and loading a Smoothbore would have inevitably appealed to the Indian warrior over time and experience, in the F&I period relevant to our discussion.

 

[.36Rooster]

A Rifle needed careful cleaning and fouled too easily in a violent encounter, although a Meat getter was the priority in the wilderness, time wasted reloading in what could be a life or death situation...

I agree 100%. In fact, in the book, there was a lot of anticipation of the dreaded british bayonet charge, and some considerable practice and rehearsal by the men at parrying bayonet thrusts, and defensive maneuvers after parrying... i dont recall much mention of the men themselves having bayonets...a smoothbore can be reloaded 3 times as rapidly and, i believe will fire and tolerate fouling for 3 times as many shots before they need maintenance...some of the smoothbore shooters on here will know better about that than I do though, because I have no personal experience with smoothbores. I do think however, that, in expectation of close quarters, and anticipation of a bayonet charge, smoothbores were a godsend.

 

[Coinneach]

I agree 100%. In fact, in the book, there was a lot of anticipation of the dreaded british bayonet charge, and some considerable practice and rehearsal by the men at parrying bayonet thrusts, and defensive maneuvers after parrying... i dont recall much mention of the men themselves having bayonets...a smoothbore can be reloaded 3 times as rapidly and, i believe will fire and tolerate fouling for 3 times as many shots before they need maintenance...some of the smoothbore shooters on here will know better about that than I do though, because I have no personal experience with smoothbores. I do think however, that, in expectation of close quarters, and anticipation of a bayonet charge, smoothbores were a godsend.

Agreed, after 37 years in uniformed service, (much of that in Combat arms units) I can testify to a firm belief in the Smoothbore being the most practical for survival and conflict if I was time travelled back to the F&I war period, including the American revolutionary war.

I read somewhere a while ago that Benjamin Franklin himself recommended not the Rifle, but the LONG BOW as being an effective weapon against the British Brown Bess armed Infantry; Washington reportedly rejected it on the grounds that the training and arming of the Continental Line would be lengthy and impractical' but made no comment on the Long Bow as a weapon itself.

 

[Kmcmichael]

Agreed, after 37 years in uniformed service, (much of that in Combat arms units) I can testify to a firm belief in the Smoothbore being the most practical for survival and conflict if I was time travelled back to the F&I war period, including the American revolutionary war.

I read somewhere a while ago that Benjamin Franklin himself recommended not the Rifle, but the LONG BOW as being an effective weapon against the British Brown Bess armed Infantry; Washington reportedly rejected it on the grounds that the training and arming of the Continental Line would be lengthy and impractical' but made no comment on the Long Bow as a weapon itself.

There was a saying “ it takes 2 weeks to train a shooter and a lifetime to make an archer”.

 

[Coinneach]

I once read a book about a 14 year old boy, who like all the other male settlers in that area, marched from a cabin in the backwoods, with what amounted to his family gun, a gifted tomahawk, and a sack of food....to join that fight.

i know smoothbores were extremely common for these families for their functionality in terms of being able to use both ball and shot, so i don't think a smoothbore would be that far off, as most were using their own personal guns, which a heck of a lot of those had tended to be smoothbore in that region.

I've often read about how great the "Squirrel rifles" were in battle, but how does a .32 or .36 calibre reach out beyond 60 odd yards particularly in a cross wind; and how many shots are there before a barrel is so fouled to force cleaning?
I can't help but assume that many accounts of the time were exaggerated, BTW I have a repro Tennessee Flinter MR in .36 cal and value its realistic range accuracy highly.

 

[Coinneach]

There was a saying “ it takes 2 weeks to train a shooter and a lifetime to make an archer”.

So true, its a very specialised skill.

 

[Coinneach]

The OP's question was of an average man living west of the appalachians in the time period. So.... that would mean what was the average firearm that was predominate in the area. Were there smoothbores, yes, but....

Read the documentation that is available and there is only one conclusion.

Then the Indian dimension was introduced, not the "average man living west of the appalachians".

 

[Coinneach]

I’m not sure I’m tough enough to have lived on the frontier back then.

I reckon they just had to live with the fact that life was short and high risk, they had little choice but to tough it out; I stand in awe of them to be honest.

 

[tenngun]

One thing we need to keep in mind is production. Most rifles were made by a smith with a few approtice and journeyman working for him. How many guns could they turn out per year? Two or three dozen?
In the south rifles were few and far between in 1763. So twelve years until the revolution?
I don’t know if home producers could make enough rifles to become the majority of guns

 

[.36Rooster]

Agreed, after 37 years in uniformed service, (much of that in Combat arms units) I can testify to a firm belief in the Smoothbore being the most practical for survival and conflict if I was time travelled back to the F&I war period, including the American revolutionary war.

I read somewhere a while ago that Benjamin Franklin himself recommended not the Rifle, but the LONG BOW as being an effective weapon against the British Brown Bess armed Infantry; Washington reportedly rejected it on the grounds that the training and arming of the Continental Line would be lengthy and impractical' but made no comment on the Long Bow as a weapon itself.

Well, it served the indians pretty well. Out here they chose bows over guns. The only reason the U.S. ever won, was, A, they had more people, even though one indian quickly outfought 5-10 whites, and B, the first repeating rifles and revolvers were invented....with respect to A and the indians being such good fighters, in some of the spanish skirmishes in the south and southwest, my thought is that, the spanish were shipping new and foreign guys from spain over to the gulf coast, whereas the americans had came from ancestors who migrated progressively from the east as frontiersman and indian fighters over the last couple hundred years...those guys were born and seasoned at a young age. In order to get through the indians, and especially some of their ancestors who got through the shawnee, they had to be some lean mean fighting machines...

To bring this post back to the era though, i have read multiple accounts of the british complaining that the americans were more indian than white in certain regions...even to the point of dressing like them (think of guys in the region of ohio, Kentucky, indiana, and North Carolina, like Sam Brady and his scouts for instance, along with others,...ambushing and giving war whoops with their guerilla tactics inspired from the natives and wearing indian garb...it was common fighting knowledge of the era, and battles were won by the americans by spreading out widely and whooping during a sudden ambush to overwhelm the british, who were much intimidated by only a few guys.

 

[.36Rooster]

I've often read about how great the "Squirrel rifles" were in battle, but how does a .32 or .36 calibre reach out beyond 60 odd yards particularly in a cross wind; and how many shots are there before a barrel is so fouled to force cleaning?
I can't help but assume that many accounts of the time were exaggerated, BTW I have a repro Tennessee Flinter MR in .36 cal and value its realistic range accuracy highly.

There really aren't any crosswinds in heavily forested mountains to worry about. Even today, i never even had to deal with that effect while shooting until i moved west of the Mississippi. Where at longer range, out here it really does matter...as far as the caliber size, a hole through the heart is a hole through the heart...and a hit anywhere else, well it put a guy out of the fight until the end of the battle when the troops roamed through to inventory the dead and collect prisoners....at which point he didn't stand a chance anyway...

 

[Coinneach]

Provide documentation

The current state of my Library of reference books on American history stored in a 20 ft shipping container, I'll get to it, but at the moment other demanding priorities exist.

One thing we need to keep in mind is production. Most rifles were made by a smith with a few approtice and journeyman working for him. How many guns could they turn out per year? Two or three dozen?
In the south rifles were few and far between in 1763. So twelve years until the revolution?
I don’t know if home producers could make enough rifles to become the majority of guns

Makes sense, now factor in the Cost of buying more than a few of what was a limited supply.

 

[Coinneach]

There really aren't any crosswinds in heavily forested mountains to worry about. Even today, i never even had to deal with that effect while shooting until i moved west of the Mississippi. Where at longer range, out here it really does matter...as far as the caliber size, a hole through the heart is a hole through the heart...and a hit anywhere else, well it put a guy out of the fight until the end of the battle when the troops roamed through to inventory the dead and collect prisoners....at which point he didn't stand a chance anyway...

Valid point.

 

[Coinneach]

Valid point, but how does that equate on a formal open battlefield of the times ?

 

[.36Rooster]

I would say the one in ten guy who brought his squirrel rifle in that era, was an asset to the militia. Simon Girty, pulled off a 300 yd shot on, i believe, a british officer, from the walls of a fort which was isolated and starving for months, prior to becoming a traitor and siding with the british and sympathizing with the indians...i would say it was from the forts where us rifle toting squirrel guys really shined...

 

[Flintlock]

I've often read about how great the "Squirrel rifles" were in battle, but how does a .32 or .36 calibre reach out beyond 60 odd yards particularly in a cross wind; and how many shots are there before a barrel is so fouled to force cleaning?
I can't help but assume that many accounts of the time were exaggerated, BTW I have a repro Tennessee Flinter MR in .36 cal and value its realistic range accuracy highly.

These small bore guns ( 40 and under) are more of a mid 19th century thing. During the time of the Revolution .47 cal and up would have been by far the common.

 

[Flintlock]

None of your references support the prolific use of Rifled guns over Smoothbore Muskets /Fusils/ Trade guns, but there were certainly Rifled long arms among the Tribes but in what percentage compared to Smooth bores ? Thats the question.

I've read more than a few articles on Smoothbore guns of the period, and one of the quotes that comes to mind is "the Indians will have no other", again thats not to dismiss the presence of Rifles among the Tribes.

Four technical points to consider,
1. If Rifles were so prolific can it be argued that the required Cloth Patch materials were equally so ? Leather patching would have to be the last option considered, as thickness of a patch is the great variable, and jammed Ramrods in a Rifled Barrel are an unacceptable Risk; not so in a Smoothbore though where there's considerable more leeway for patching, or no patching; in addition to timely swabbing out a fouled barrel. (I've used my own urine in a pinch, and I know that was common "way back when").
2. In the case of a jammed or broken Ramrod in a Rifles barrel, did the Indians have Ramrod pullers other than a length of cordage, (less than efficient as most of us would know); and how were broken ramrods replaced quick enough ?
3. The Indian Tribes in northern regions reportedly employed Forest fighting tactics preferably from Ambush, that implies a close up effectiveness easily achievable with a Smoothbore weapon capable of being reloaded much easier and faster than a Rifled gun.
4. Ease of maintenance, a Rifled barrel requires regular cleaning as it easily fouls with a limited number of shots, whereas a Smoothbore has a longer durability and simpler cleaning process than the Rifle.

One unanswered question is, how many Rifles compared to Smoothbores were captured/ confiscated from Indian tribes once they were subjugated during and by the end of the F&I War, additionally what have achaeological sites revealed.

In conclusion the Smoothbore has to be a far more practical Firearm in both a Survival and Forest warfare scenario, than a Rifled one. The simplicity of cleaning and loading a Smoothbore would have inevitably appealed to the Indian warrior over time and experience, in the F&I period relevant to our discussion.

The (common man) was not planning extensive military use but feeding his family, often on a very tight budget. A rifle uses far less lead and powder than a smoothbore. Powder and lead were often in very short supply for the common man. Hunting small game was a waste ot both when traps and snares served the purpose better.

 

[.36Rooster]

These small bore guns ( 40 and under) are more of a mid 19th century thing. During the time of the Revolution .47 cal and up would have been by far the common.

I think you're right, i have read that as the frontier moved westward, and the deer and elk and buffalo throughout places like virginia/ west v, kentucky, north carolina, indiana became hunted out, the larger bores became less common, as the small bores were more economical on lead, powder, and adequate for any purpose, which tended to be man, and small game and vermin...about the only thing left in those areas to shoot at...in the slightly earlier revolutionary era though, eastern buffalo and elk, were still a real thing...so it may very well be that the average rifle toter in that area had a larger caliber...during the same era, i read an account of john james audubon recalling a squirrel hunt with Boone, describing the process of boone killing squirrels by shooting the limb or tree trunk directly near their head, killing the squirrels with the blown out chunks of wood, so he was definitely using a larger caliber bore...i think that probably reflects the availability of rifles in the day in terms of caliber. I suspect they were larger. The rifles we hear about during the revolutionary era most likely weren't "squirrel rifles," at least not how we think of them today.