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

[Artificer]

.36Rooster said:
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.

Folks, this is a problem when we take too much of our modern experience and try to put it back in the day.

"Heavily Forested" back in the day usually meant Old Growth Forests where there was little ground cover, as the shade from the tree canopy did not allow enough sunlight for much ground cover. Forests with a lot of cover usually meant it had been logged off or fire had destroyed much of the old growth.

I've hunted both Old Growth and New Growth forested areas here in Virginia for quite some time, since the mid 1970's. I can tell you that even New Growth forested areas (where at times and due to the ground cover you can't make out a deer or a man beyond 30 yards) doesn't stop the wind all that much and in the Old Growth areas, hardly at all.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oh and addendum to my last post. King's Mountain would mainly have been an Old Growth forest at the time of the battle. So wind would definitely have been a factor there, if it was blowing that day.

This is proven by the number of times the Overmountain men were thrown back at 60 to 80 yards by the smoothbore armed British Loyalist Militia. They could not have fired that accurately at that range, had it been new growth forest with a lot of ground cover.

Gus

 

[.36Rooster]

Oh and addendum to my last post. King's Mountain would mainly have been an Old Growth forest at the time of the battle. So wind would definitely have been a factor there, if it was blowing that day.

This is proven by the number of times the Overmountain men were thrown back at 60 to 80 yards by the smoothbore armed British Loyalist Militia. They could not have fired that accurately at that range, had it been new growth forest with a lot of ground cover.

Gus

I was implying heavily forested as the original old growth of that era. Lots of areas near forts were of course burned and cleared, but what i meant as the wind not being much of a factor was that, when I living in the Eastern mountains, with their knobby hills and twisted valleys, the landscape blocks the wind and chops it up and diverts it in so many directions, that its force was insignificant, and with most shots in heavily (mature) forested mountains, the wind wasnt really a factor with the majority of shots being under 150 yards... yes, you could get to a vantage and see across a valley for 100s of yards, but you could not see what lies beneath the opposite valley's tree canopy. And even in open areas, that were burned out and cleared where the forts tended to be, the landscape chops up the wind to the point that, for example, when i lived and hunted in the eastern mountains, the weather forecast could be 40 mph winds, and north, but when you went out to hunt, the winds were actually a calm 10 mph, and thermal dominated... you learned to just not check the forecast...climb to the highest peak in that area, and yes, you will find a 40 mph north wind...but that is a single point on the landscape. Some forts on high ridges and hills, likely did have enough wind that some crack shots became familiar with it, but often, forts were adjacent to an impassible boundary, which tended to also block the wind, and positioned just high enough to overlook the only pass into the area. And often they were built up put of desperation and ignorance, in a low inopportune area, without any vantage and certainly no wind, by the mere terrified and isolated settlers of that era, who sent runners asking for help from reinforcements from the militia which never came, which lead to people being trapped for months at a time, sending their boldest out to hunt and gather water.

Then you also have cases like guys shooting at canoes across the ohio river, for instance, with its valley forming a wind tunnel channeling wind down its length, and realizing that their balls were splashing far to the left or right, and adjusting their point of aim. It did happen... but those are more isolated instances and occasional dealings with...its not like out here in this area on the prairie where you can literally see for 15 miles, there is no cover, and are guaranteed the wind is unidirectional, unobstructed, and always blowing at 40 mph. In general, out east it just wasn't a constant factor.

 

[Artificer]

I was implying heavily forested as the original old growth of that era. Lots of areas near forts were of course burned and cleared, but what i meant as the wind not being much of a factor was that, when I living in the Eastern mountains, with their knobby hills and twisted valleys, the landscape blocks the wind and chops it up and diverts it in so many directions, that its force was insignificant, and with most shots in heavily (mature) forested mountains, the wind wasnt really a factor with the majority of shots being under 150 yards... yes, you could get to a vantage and see across a valley for 100s of yards, but you could not see what lies beneath the opposite valley's tree canopy. And even in open areas, that were burned out and cleared where the forts tended to be, the landscape chops up the wind to the point that, for example, when i lived and hunted in the eastern mountains, the weather forecast could be 40 mph winds, and north, but when you went out to hunt, the winds were actually a calm 10 mph, and thermal dominated... you learned to just not check the forecast...climb to the highest peak in that area, and yes, you will find a 40 mph north wind...but that is a single point on the landscape. Some forts on high ridges and hills, likely did have enough wind that some crack shots became familiar with it, but often, forts were adjacent to an impassible boundary, which tended to also block the wind, and positioned just high enough to overlook the only pass into the area. And often they were built up put of desperation and ignorance, in a low inopportune area, without any vantage and certainly no wind, by the mere terrified and isolated settlers of that era, who sent runners asking for help from reinforcements from the militia which never came, which lead to people being trapped for months at a time, sending their boldest out to hunt and gather water.

Then you also have cases like guys shooting at canoes across the ohio river, for instance, with its valley forming a wind tunnel channeling wind down its length, and realizing that their balls were splashing far to the left or right, and adjusting their point of aim. It did happen... but those are more isolated instances and occasional dealings with...its not like out here in this area on the prairie where you can literally see for 15 miles, there is no cover, and are guaranteed the wind is unidirectional, unobstructed, and always blowing at 40 mph. In general, out east it just wasn't a constant factor.

So, you weren't really talking about the area around King's Mountain?


Gus

 

[Coinneach]

Provide documentation

My current library consists of 2 x 20ft long 9ft high shipping containers, both sides book shelved and floors crammed, my apologies but the priority is for me to get my off the grid property sustainable, Horses to feed as well.
I'll get to it when I'm able.

BTW I'm not just a History nut, I've also actively collected, built, hunted and Range fired Muzzle loading Flinters since the mid 80's.

 

[Coinneach]

.36Rooster said:
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...



Folks, this is a problem when we take too much of our modern experience and try to put it back in the day.

"Heavily Forested" back in the day usually meant Old Growth Forests where there was little ground cover, as the shade from the tree canopy did not allow enough sunlight for much ground cover. Forests with a lot of cover usually meant it had been logged off or fire had destroyed much of the old growth.

I've hunted both Old Growth and New Growth forested areas here in Virginia for quite some time, since the mid 1970's. I can tell you that even New Growth forested areas (where at times and due to the ground cover you can't make out a deer or a man beyond 30 yards) doesn't stop the wind all that much and in the Old Growth areas, hardly at all.

Gus

So my in depth study replays of the opening scene where Hawkeye sprints 1.2 miles through the forest up hill and down dale, over well watered creeks to "stalk" a casually grazing Buck; then drop him to the ground with a well aimed unsupported long Rifle shot at 400 yards in the forest while controlling his breathing; has all been in vain ?

 

[Coinneach]

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...

I've heard of Girty, what calibre was his "Squirrel rifle" when the legendary shot was made ?

 

[Coinneach]

I was implying heavily forested as the original old growth of that era. Lots of areas near forts were of course burned and cleared, but what i meant as the wind not being much of a factor was that, when I living in the Eastern mountains, with their knobby hills and twisted valleys, the landscape blocks the wind and chops it up and diverts it in so many directions, that its force was insignificant, and with most shots in heavily (mature) forested mountains, the wind wasnt really a factor with the majority of shots being under 150 yards... yes, you could get to a vantage and see across a valley for 100s of yards, but you could not see what lies beneath the opposite valley's tree canopy. And even in open areas, that were burned out and cleared where the forts tended to be, the landscape chops up the wind to the point that, for example, when i lived and hunted in the eastern mountains, the weather forecast could be 40 mph winds, and north, but when you went out to hunt, the winds were actually a calm 10 mph, and thermal dominated... you learned to just not check the forecast...climb to the highest peak in that area, and yes, you will find a 40 mph north wind...but that is a single point on the landscape. Some forts on high ridges and hills, likely did have enough wind that some crack shots became familiar with it, but often, forts were adjacent to an impassible boundary, which tended to also block the wind, and positioned just high enough to overlook the only pass into the area. And often they were built up put of desperation and ignorance, in a low inopportune area, without any vantage and certainly no wind, by the mere terrified and isolated settlers of that era, who sent runners asking for help from reinforcements from the militia which never came, which lead to people being trapped for months at a time, sending their boldest out to hunt and gather water.

Then you also have cases like guys shooting at canoes across the ohio river, for instance, with its valley forming a wind tunnel channeling wind down its length, and realizing that their balls were splashing far to the left or right, and adjusting their point of aim. It did happen... but those are more isolated instances and occasional dealings with...its not like out here in this area on the prairie where you can literally see for 15 miles, there is no cover, and are guaranteed the wind is unidirectional, unobstructed, and always blowing at 40 mph. In general, out east it just wasn't a constant factor.

Thank you for an excellent appreciation of the terrain and wind effect over there on the ground.

 

[Artificer]

So my in depth study replays of the opening scene where Hawkeye sprints 1.2 miles through the forest up hill and down dale, over well watered creeks to "stalk" a casually grazing Buck; then drop him to the ground with a well aimed unsupported long Rifle shot at 400 yards in the forest while controlling his breathing; has all been in vain ?

Yep, 'fraid so.
Gus

 

[French Colonial]

None of your references support the prolific use of Rifled guns over Smoothbore Muskets /Fusils/ Trade guns,

Oh really....

What does for the most part mean? "the Indians make use of rifled guns for the most part"

What does use no other mean? "the Delaware Indians use no other than rifle-barrel guns"

Argue all you want and provide supposition but you provide not one period documentation of your theory outside of military use. And American military leaders emulated British leaders in favoring muskets for the most part. That has nothing to do with the OP's question.

Indians cleaned their weapons the same way the long hunters did I would suppose I have no documentation on Indians cleaning firearms of any kind, and this tired old saw of how the bow and arrow was so much superior in fire power... Don't make me laugh. Why do period accounts of Indian attacks on whites feature firearms so frequently both in remote situations (salt licks etc.) and attacks on forts? Oh I guess I forgot my bow at home so I will use this firearm I found. If you look at actual history Indians ditched their bows as soon as they could come up with enough deer skins to trade for the rifle. Bows are cool, I have two but at 75 yards I will use a rifle.

When Daniel Boone escaped captivity I don't remember him taking a bow with him, I wonder why he took a rifle when so many bows were available.

Oh, the cost of a smoothbore was less! Oh, they were easier to clean! Oh, they were more versatile when hunting brer rabbit! Show me the documentation they were more prevalent!

This constant arguing about why YOU would carry a smoothbore has NOTHING to do with what is DOCUMENTED many times over.

Show me one piece from the period that says smoothbores were more prevalent amongst private citizens on the frontier than rifles and I will accept your argument.

Read some period documentation, inspect inventory lists from the time period and then come back with some actual evidence to back up your theories.

 

[rich pierce]

This has predictably devolved into whether one would personally choose a smoothbore or a rifle for themselves.

 

[French Colonial]

This has predictably devolved into whether one would personally choose a smoothbore or a rifle for themselves.

Yes, predictably is correct

 

[Coinneach]

Yep, 'fraid so.
Gus

If I claim "I'm offended" will that do any good ?

 

[Billy Boy]

i would like to see that documentation. My 4th and 5th grandfather served under A.P. Hill in the militia for the entire year of 1780. Although Hill was wounded his men participated at Kings mountain. There were also Virginia regulars there. My ancestors were living near there and may have had rifles but it is unlikely that the Virginia troops did.

I doubt A P Hill (of Civil War fame) was was on the planet in 1780.

 

[French Colonial]

Look...

I do not want to offend any one, what I would like to see is some supporting material for peoples suppositions.

In T.F. Belue's latest book The Hunters of Kentucky, he even supposes there were more smoothbores than rifles in the area, which is the area in question but he does not provide evidence to support. And there may never be definitive proof.

I would love to see positive documentation in the form of inventories or the like (from other than military sources) and if smoothbores were more plentiful so be it.

Win me over to your side so I can enjoy my Caywood even more.

 

[tenngun]

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.

That sounds very practical. But trading post were full of shot, snipe shot, beaver sho,t swan shot ect. Some one on the frontier was buying all that shot

 

[tenngun]

I doubt A P Hill (of Civil War fame) was was on the planet in 1780.

I have a cousin who owns the Springfield percussion rifle my great grandfather carried in the revolution. I was eighteen or nineteen when I saw it and still pretty new to the sport. But let me tell you woe be on the kid who dispels a family myth. Don’t ever say ‘this isn’t a Revolutionary gun.’
Oh my

 

[French Colonial]

I have cousins who have my Great Grandfathers Springfield percussion he carried in the Civil War.....

EXCEPT.... He was in the Ohio First Volunteer Cavalry and they were issued Sharps carbines at the start of the war and Spencers three years in...

But don't argue, their minds are made up.

 

[Kmcmichael]

I doubt A P Hill (of Civil War fame) was was on the planet in 1780.

Yes my mistake, it was Col William Hill.

 

[Ohio Rusty]

The narratives of Col. John May. One of my favorite people in 18th century Ohio History. He wrote several great narratives and made two journeys to the Ohio Country in 1788 and 1789. He purchased property at early Marietta with plans to establish a home there. (The town of Maysville Ky. was named after him) Unfortunately, in 1790 he was travelling down the Ohio river on a flatboat and their boat was suckered by a white man pretending he was needing help from the banks of the Ohio as a decoy for the Shawnee indians hidden in the woods. When their craft was close to shore it was ambushed. When the indians attacked, John May held up and waved his white nightcap as a flag of truce and he was shot through the head and killed instantly.
His narratives can be read that this link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Wx0UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3...
One of my favorite additions was his detailed narrative of everything he took with him on the flatboat and what he needed to get established on the Ohio frontier at Marietta. That screenshot is shown below. A great read if you like early Ohio 18th century history.