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

[CookedOff]

Howdy, Concerning old-growth forests in the east. The Indians practiced a much different type of agriculture than we did. Over centuries they burned, groomed, planted, and husbanded the forests for nuts fruits, and berries, on a very large scale. Before the white man's diseases, there were millions more Indians than after, and their agricultures feed those millions. According to early accounts, the old forests were more like parks, and that you could drive a wagon almost everywhere in the forest. So they weren't necessarily the thick undergrowth that we consider dense forest.

 

[flintsteel]

Folks, I hate to tell you this but someone on the frontier most likely used whatever gun they had access to, if any. Ninety nine percent of them were dirt poor and were lucky to even have anything that would go “boom”. Despite images we have many did not even have a gun. And carefully worked up load? Give me a break! Powder quality varied tremendously, patch material was whatever was available and if cloth was homespun it was homespun and flints were whatever rock they could get their hands on. Ever seen a period backcountry mold? Crude to the extreme, often just soapstone stone blocks pinned together. The extreme accuracy legend has handed down is a bunch of malarkey. Even with the precision materials we have today we cannot achieve accuracy these legends have acquired.

a large percentage of the original “rifles” I have observed were originally smoothbores, many in smaller calibers (less than .54). I suspect it was because the smoothbore is so tolerant of shooting anything stuffed down the bore—from bare balls to cut shot, to rocks….it worked at the short ranges most were used.

 

[M. De Land]

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.

Take a look at a deflection chart for a .36 cal ball and it will be an eye opener. I hunt regularly in mountainous terrain here in Alaska and any river or wide creek will almost always have some wind moving in it that will need to be accounted for by mid morning, in a 100 yard shot. This is particularly true from mid day until dusk on a diagonal shot.

 

[Robby]

I don't know, it would depend on my circumstances, but looking at it from my perspective today, I would say a .58 caliber smoothbore with a 48" barrel, exactly what is on my work bench right now and sadly will not be completed for this years deer season, but will be for sure finished for the spring turkey season.
Robby

 

[tenngun]

Carry 50 .69 cal balls with you on a trek, now carry 50 .48 cal balls ( common size years ago). I commonly load my .45 with 25-30 grains of FFG to take grouse, ducks and rabbits with 47 grains my common load, or 50 grains or less in the .50 cal. We can make a pound of powder go a long way with a rifle.

Often we read of some frontiersman caught on his own and on foot in the wild. This fellow then has to travel some distance for succor.
And they have a full horn, but only a few ball in their bag, five or six.
Now five .62 ball weigh 1/4 pound-four ounces. Five .50 weigh about two ounces. Half the weight. On the other hand if you pick up a full bag to go hunting I doubt you will note much of a difference between two ounces and four.

 

[LRB]

I cannot give you any particular source, but I believe if you check records of the 18th c. colonies, such as estate inventories, tax records, merchant manifests, ect., you will find 3 or 4, or even more smoothies, to every rifle. Rifles were not cheap, but in comparison, smooth bores were, and most every farmer could afford a smooth bore, and most anyone can score game using one with very little training or practice. JMHO.

 

[tenngun]

I cannot give you any particular source, but I believe if you check records of the 18th c. colonies, such as estate inventories, tax records, merchant manifests, ect., you will find 3 or 4, or even more smoothies, to every rifle. Rifles were not cheap, but in comparison, smooth bores were, and most every farmer could afford a smooth bore, and most anyone can score game using one with very little training or practice. JMHO.

One thing we need to image when we look at the past. We tend to think of a man in a cabin with a wife and a rug rat or two ruggedly self sufficient.
And we could find these folks, but mostly after the frontier was pretty well settled. After a local threat was gone.
The guys that went forth in to the wild to build a farm and raise a family did so as part of a community. The rugged-log cabin was built close to others. A few dozen families went together. And stayed together till it was safe.
How long would it take a community of a a few families to eat every deer within walking distance?
Just because your trying to build a home stead doesn’t mean your going to be eating venison every night. You’ve went with hogs, chickens maybe a few ducks or turkey.
You’ve planted your corn, and some root veggies. Your trying to make a living.
You need to clear land, cut several cords of wood by hand, you’ve got flax to process, sheep to shear. Your busy as long as there was light.
Do you have the time it takes to practice?
The boys and girls who show well at the nationals are out most every weekend burning powder. Did the frontiersman have that time, and powder to spend in practice?
I doubt that on average they would have out shot me.
Maybe not as well.
We read about some fantastic shots, but I think we hear about them because they were so rare.
We tend to picture life as an event on steroids. I bet the reality was a lot more mundane.
All the little things we take pride in learning and practicing was mundane toil.

 

[Cattywompuss]

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

He corrected that soon after I questioned it yesterday.

 

[Coinneach]

If you took the time and consideration to read my post #105 earlier you would understand why I haven't been able to immediately address your questions.

"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."
My comment about Bows was made in the context of Ben Franklins recommendation to George Washington, why do you take it out of context and rely on sarcasm to make a point in this discussion ?

"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."
Are you stressing here that only your quoted comments from the period are valid references ? If so then your "exclusiveness" approach to History denies any Archaeological evidence or scholarly research by creditable historians.

..."but you provide not one period documentation of your theory outside of military use."
As I commented in an earlier post at this time I'm limited accessing my books, never the less I managed to retrieve some worthwhile references as follows.

"Trade rifles are less frequent in collections than the Trade gun, and often are less obvious than trade pieces".....Muzzle-loading rifles apparently were not in great demand in the Indian trade. The Fusee was a lighter more versatile firearm in the hands of most Indian hunters or warriors. At reasonable ranges it did the job of a rifled arm, yet it was adaptable to a greater variety of uses......"Rifles of the 'Kentucky' type and later hybridizations (the Lancaster pattern) were produced in some quantity (my italics) during the first half of the 19th century. They appear to have been widely distributed by federal "factories" as treaty rifles, and by commercial venturers. "
( Note the period is considerably later than you assert to be the case).
( Chapt 2, The English Pattern Trade Rifle. Caldwell W. Indian Trade Guns. Pioneer Press. 1982).

""Witthoft points out that there was an abrupt break in the Beaver market in 1675. As a consequence the Indians could buy comparatively few guns (my italics) thereafter and took far better care of them......after 1675 there was a marked tendency to keep the guns (my italics) for the use of the living. Apparently the Seneca never again could afford such spendthrift ways....." (my italics, Note the term "Gun" not "Rifle"). (Chapt 5, Relics From 17th Century Seneca Sites. Hamilton T. Indian Trade Guns. Pioneer Press. 1982).
My comment: Although it pre-dates the period of interest you emphasise, it does present evidence that the Seneca in particular, and by default other Tribes in the region weren't in a position to buy Rifles in quantity ever again.

"As a mature, functional type, the gun (my italics) was well established by the late 18th century, persisting with only minor constructional alterations until the substantial stabilisation of the American west in the late 1800's" (Chapt 8, Relics from Fort Pierre 11, Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota. Caldwell W. Indian Trade Guns. Pioneer Press. 1982).

"...This constant arguing about why YOU would carry a smoothbore...."
Quote one example where I've constantly argued, so why do you now resort to a petulantly childish accusation; because someone presents an alternate point of view to your own ?

This is the last time I respond to your posts.

 

[French Colonial]

Going by your upper case and in Bold emphasis you're an angry belligerent guy , try to calm down and maintain a civilised behaviour.

I don’t need your opinion unless you have something intelligent to add, so far you have not.

 

[French Colonial]

What I actually do is get frustrated by those who do not do an even minor amount of historical research and then spout off with opinions that have no basis other than their fantasies

and provide NO research

Bless your heart

 

[Coinneach]

Often we read of some frontiersman caught on his own and on foot in the wild. This fellow then has to travel some distance for succor.
And they have a full horn, but only a few ball in their bag, five or six.
Now five .62 ball weigh 1/4 pound-four ounces. Five .50 weigh about two ounces. Half the weight. On the other hand if you pick up a full bag to go hunting I doubt you will note much of a difference between two ounces and four.

As an ex Infantry man who's carried "it all" I can testify to one fundamental truth, any of us "out there" will willingly carry whatever Ammo we estimate to be essential, even if it means culling down our ration packs and un-necessaries; something whispers to me that the Frontiersmen weren't that much different to us.

 

[Coinneach]

I cannot give you any particular source, but I believe if you check records of the 18th c. colonies, such as estate inventories, tax records, merchant manifests, ect., you will find 3 or 4, or even more smoothies, to every rifle. Rifles were not cheap, but in comparison, smooth bores were, and most every farmer could afford a smooth bore, and most anyone can score game using one with very little training or practice. JMHO.

Its obvious that economics played a heavy hand in Firearm choice (that is if the individual could somehow scrape up enough to afford a purchase), then if we factor in the Indian tribes who relied on Fur and Skin trading (a finite resource at best considering the rough tribal "boundaries" and ongoing conflicts with each other ) one has to conclude that the Indians didnt have the luxury of buying the more expensive Rifles en masse, sure there would have been exceptions here and there as an individual in one or two seasons managed to somehow excel at trapping, but never on the scale of Indian tribes exclusively equipping themselves with expensive Rifles circa 1730-1800.

 

[French Colonial]

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

One of the best arguments for smoothbores is right here from tenngun, inventories for traders and forts show different sizes of shot and bar lead. The bar lead is most likely for running ball, the shot tells us that the intrepid outdoorsman chose not to make his own shot if it was available locally. Very good.

 

[Dave Fox]

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.

Read my "contribution".

 

[Lee44ShooterCnB]

If you took the time and consideration to read my post #105 earlier you would understand why I haven't been able to immediately address your questions.

"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."
My comment about Bows was made in the context of Ben Franklins recommendation to George Washington, why do you take it out of context and rely on sarcasm to make a point in this discussion ?

"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."
Are you stressing here that only your quoted comments from the period are valid references ? If so then your "exclusiveness" approach to History denies any Archaeological evidence or scholarly research by creditable historians.

..."but you provide not one period documentation of your theory outside of military use."
As I commented in an earlier post at this time I'm limited accessing my books, never the less I managed to retrieve some worthwhile references as follows.

"Trade rifles are less frequent in collections than the Trade gun, and often are less obvious than trade pieces".....Muzzle-loading rifles apparently were not in great demand in the Indian trade. The Fusee was a lighter more versatile firearm in the hands of most Indian hunters or warriors. At reasonable ranges it did the job of a rifled arm, yet it was adaptable to a greater variety of uses......"Rifles of the 'Kentucky' type and later hybridizations (the Lancaster pattern) were produced in some quantity (my italics) during the first half of the 19th century. They appear to have been widely distributed by federal "factories" as treaty rifles, and by commercial venturers. "
( Note the period is considerably later than you assert to be the case).
( Chapt 2, The English Pattern Trade Rifle. Caldwell W. Indian Trade Guns. Pioneer Press. 1982).

""Witthoft points out that there was an abrupt break in the Beaver market in 1675. As a consequence the Indians could buy comparatively few guns (my italics) thereafter and took far better care of them......after 1675 there was a marked tendency to keep the guns (my italics) for the use of the living. Apparently the Seneca never again could afford such spendthrift ways....." (my italics, Note the term "Gun" not "Rifle"). (Chapt 5, Relics From 17th Century Seneca Sites. Hamilton T. Indian Trade Guns. Pioneer Press. 1982).
My comment: Although it pre-dates the period of interest you emphasise, it does present evidence that the Seneca in particular, and by default other Tribes in the region weren't in a position to buy Rifles in quantity ever again.

"As a mature, functional type, the gun (my italics) was well established by the late 18th century, persisting with only minor constructional alterations until the substantial stabilisation of the American west in the late 1800's" (Chapt 8, Relics from Fort Pierre 11, Oahe Reservoir, South Dakota. Caldwell W. Indian Trade Guns. Pioneer Press. 1982).

"...This constant arguing about why YOU would carry a smoothbore...."
Quote one example where I've constantly argued, so why do you now resort to a petulantly childish accusation; because someone presents an alternate point of view to your own ?

This is the last time I respond to your posts.

The life of Col. John Charles Fremont, and his narrative of explorations and adventures, in Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon and California.



Frémont and '49



Catalog Record: Frémont and '49; the story of a remarkable career and its relation to the exploration and development of our western territory, especially of California



LC Catalog - Item Information (Full Record)

source for documentation
may help
LG

 

[Dave Fox]

I have no insight into the proportion of rifles to smoothbores on America's Revolutionary frontier. How's THAT for a grounding to enter the fray? However, it is notable 1850s printed guides for pilgrims trekking west to California and Oregon recommended smoothbores as armament for the travelers in the form of double barrel shotguns. The illustration may sound remote from the Revolutionary period, but the rewards and risks faced were much the same as found in Kentucky 75 years earlier: harvesting game, feathered and furry for the pot, defense against dangers in the form of Native Americans and large critters. And recall: at every stage of frontier expansion, the vast majority of pioneers were simply farmers mixed with a few mechanics (in the early sense of the word) and tradesmen, a plow, not a specialist's rifle, were their chief tool. The Daniel Boones, Lewis Wetzels, and Simon Kentons were always a minority.

 

[tenngun]

As an ex Infantry man who's carried "it all" I can testify to one fundamental truth, any of us "out there" will willingly carry whatever Ammo we estimate to be essential, even if it means culling down our ration packs and un-necessaries; something whispers to me that the Frontiersmen weren't that much different to us.

they were different in one way, they didn’t go forth to war..
Man, his wife children and any stock went forth to settle. He wants a farm, or a place to practice his skill if he is a blacksmith or cooper or such. The last thing he wants is a fight.
A Hunter/trapper wants his game, get as much skins as he can and get back to the trading post.
A trader wanted to set up a place to trade. None are looking for a fight.
And even in the bad years of conflict we can’t compare the frontier to Vietnam or France in ‘44, or a mud brick village in the near east. And the bad years of conflict were outnumbered by the good.
The frontier was a big space. As well settled areas just became less and less settled a little mor rough and ready.

 

[smoothshooter]

Regarding weight, we are also leaving out the fact that longhunters and trekkers had horses. This is a known fact. While weight is still definitely a factor, as the pelts pile up the weight in lead and powder goes down. Scouts, Rangers, and such might have been on foot, but hunters were not.

I would say lots of hunters started out with horses.
And lots of hunters returned home on foot after the Indians stole them.

 

[Cattywompuss]

I would say lots of hunters started out with horses.
And lots of hunters returned home on foot after the Indians stole them.

Accurately put!