Jaeger vs Longrifle

[Twisted_1in66]

Yes there were indeed Hessian troops with the British known as Jaegers (means "Hunter"). They were a rifle company, not a musket company. And yes the rifles they used were called Jaegers.

As far as smaller caliber went, the Jaegers were typically around .62 caliber, which was smaller than the .75 cal British muskets but is still a very large lead ball. Most of the American Longrifles during the Revolutionary War were primarily around .50 caliber - .48 to .58 with most in the .49 to .54 area.

Because the rifles were so much more accurate than the muskets, there was a natural tendency to move towards the smaller .50 caliber size instead of the larger .62 caliber because you can make a lot more balls per pound with .50 cal (36 to 38 per pound) than you can with a .62 ball (20 per pound). In addition you didn't need to use as much powder to fire it effectively. It takes less powder to give a .50 cal ball a muzzle velocity of 1800 fps than a .62 cal ball. Killing shots were sometimes made at as extreme a range as 400 yards. Lots of killing shots were made between 200 and 300 yards. After the conclusion of the Rev War, bore size continued to shrink with calibers around .45 becoming the most popular.

It's a bit tough to make generalizations about rifle calibers because the method of making the rifle barrels resulted in variations. Hammer-forge welding a barrel fashions a flat skelp of wrought iron around a steel mandrel with heat and hammering until it is seamlessly welded together. After the barrel has been welded into one piece around the mandrel, the mandrel is removed and then the bore is reamed out. The reamed bores were almost never the same because of natural variations in the mandrel caused by heat, plus, if the mandrel curved at all, it would require additional reaming to make the bore straight and true. Then the rifling would be cut in and you could measure the caliber. Since such variations were common, each rifle included a round ball mold made specifically to match the bore of that particular rifle.

That caused some problems for the rifles. British troops would have cartridges rolled in mass quantities and stored in barrels. All of those cartridges would fit all of the British muskets. Same with American troops using French muskets. Not so with rifles. You had to cast your own lead balls because the lead ball that fit your rifle wouldn't fit the rifle of others in your unit. Bulk lead could be supplied, but each rifleman had to cast his own lead balls. So keeping supplied with lead balls could be a challenge.

OK...I'm going to stop now...LOL

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[hanshi]

I tend to mostly agree with you. I'm passionate about longrifles and consider them the most attractive American rifles ever produced.

Then there's the jeager. I do not see them as heavy, clumsy and short barreled rifles. I've seen pictures of original jeagers with barrels up to 42" and as short as 24". As I understand it, they weren't ALL huge bore guns. There were jeagers with smaller bores similar to what would be small game/varmint calibers in the longrifles. There was generally little excess wood in them making them lighter and handier than we've been led to believe.

If I were able to afford a jeager build, it would be .54 x 31" to 35" swamped round bottom barrel. I would expect such a rifle to weigh around 7 to 7.5 pounds.

Admittedly my knowledge on the subject is scant. But I have been reading up.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I don't disagree, however from inventories and "dates" (OK these are assigned by folks often with very little clues) on extant rifles, the rifles started out a tad longer than the Jaegers of Germany...with very similar calibers though at the "lower" end...then progressed downward to the 1790's .45 was popular for the Eastern longrifle. This in the golden age.

The Jaeger rifle is a very short barreled rifle by comparison. If you have a Jaeger rifle made in Germany with a barrel longer than 36", it's not a Jaeger. Germanic styling does not automatically make a rifle a Jaeger rifle (imho). Their longer rifles which eventually morphed into their caplock scheutzen rifles are cousins of the Jaeger rifle.

My argument is this:
barrels got longer for easier accuracy
(add to that more hunting done on foot and w/o dogs)
(also add primal forest vs. 2nd growth forest in Germany)
Smaller caliber due to powder and lead availability
(add continue caliber reduction due to loss of "large" game larger than whitetail)
then out west the rifles get shorter and the calibers go back up....the reverse happens...
Corps of Discovery opts for large caliber rifles in comparison to the majority being used by civilians of the day....
.54 caliber due to larger as well as dangerous game... you're not going to stop a grizzly with a .45 without an angel's help, and .45 will only annoy a bison...
(some rifles were larger still,... .58+ and I've read an account of a .72 rifle)
Shorter for easier use on horseback, not only shooting but reloading. Hunting in the primal forest of the East on horseback is not the same as hunting on the plains.

LD

 

[Stophel]

:shake:

I'm just gonna go work on a rifle.

 

[54ball]

Why did the German-American gunmakers transform the handy Jaeger into a clumsy Pennsylvania-Kentucky longrifle???????????

The simple answer is they did not.

Wallace Gusler; whom I consider an authority on the subject, was asked by a student, What is the best, most accurate history of the development of the American Longrifle? His reply was simple.

There's not one.

We moderns are programmed that everything must evolve from a earlier form. We search for evidence of this. We try to simplify it and tie it up in a nice little documented bow. B must have evolved or was developed from A and through the years it was developed into C. The reality is much more complex when D or F dates from an earlier time and so ABCDEF in reality may all have been coming along at the same time.

I think if you really study it, really get into it you'll find the development of these arms is much more dynamic, complex and frankly hard to easily explain.....thus the development theories/stories. These aid the student somewhat and give the lay person a starting point.

My personal opinion is the Indian Trade Guns play as much or more of a role in the development of the longrifle than a target/game rifle from Central Europe.

Who was first....Christian Springs or Moravians in North Carolina? What about rifled barrels being imported to Boston in the 1720s? What about matchlock rifles of the 17th Century and before? What about Boone's alleged first "boyhood rifle" being an "English Short Rifle". You see when you really research this subject, it's not quite as clear as it's sometimes summarized in print.

I find the more I learn about these arms the less I know. To truly be a good student, one has to be willing to let go of pet theories or at least see them from a different, albeit more dynamic perspective.

As far as short vs long or jaeger vs longrifle, I find them both a pleasure to handle, different but pleasurable. I find the long barreled guns a real pleasure. Others may not.

 

[graybeard]

Take a look at an '03 Springfield. graybeard

 

[Artificer]

I just picked out of the library the Shumway Press edition of "Jaeger Rifles"--the collected articles originally published in "Muzzle Blasts."

Two other qualities of the Jaeger impressed me.

The incredible workmanship of European arms makers compared to even the best of our Pa-Ky rifle makers.

In their respective gunsmithing apprenticeships, American gunsmiths learned to make the entire "lock, stock and barrel" just like their European counterparts. However unlike their European counterparts and in normal operation; American gunsmiths usually did not have the full range of 18 to 23 "specialty gunsmithing tradesmen" that allowed for higher to the highest quality guns.

And the wide use of rear sights with two or more folding leaves giving the shooter the ability to immediately adjust his sights to the range of the target.

I've wondered about that since the 1970's when I first found out about the double leaf rear sights on some Jaegers. (I've also wondered how they could sight well with such TINY front and rear sights and do so quickly in the woods, but that is a different point.)

I would not go quite as far as to suggest that double leaf rear sights would immediately give the shooter the ability to adjust to the range of the target, but it definitely would have an aid to shoot at longer distances - without trying to guess as much on how high to hold above the target.

Gus

 

[Col. Batguano]

I think they were younger than us is how they could see them as well as they did.

Multiple leaf sights became relatively standardized on US military arms by around the 1850's. That of course necessitated a more standardized load too.

 

[Artificer]

I think they were younger than us is how they could see them as well as they did.

:grin: Yes, well younger eyes help, but not everyone who was young saw that well, either.

Multiple leaf sights became relatively standardized on US military arms by around the 1850's. That of course necessitated a more standardized load too.

Indeed, to a point. The British Baker Rifle with its leaf sights set the stage for that usage following on what the British had learned from the Jaeger Troops.

Of course, once one found the most accurate hunting load and made a powder charger for that load, the American rifles pretty much had a standardized load for each, individual rifle as well.

Gus

 

[Col. Batguano]

:grin: Yes, well younger eyes help, but not everyone who was young saw that well, either.

Good point. My kids can't see themselves cleaning up their rooms, or doing their chores, so their eyesight seems to be questionable too.

 

[smoothshooter]

As much as I love longrifles, the apparent preference for very long barrels has always been somewhat of a puzzle to me, especially in the more dangerous areas on the frontier. I would think that the very real advantages of a shorter replacement ramrod being easier to make from scratch than a longer one, better adaptability to sling swivel use, and being easier to protect from the elements in bad weather with some kind of cover would have made them more popular. Handling the shorter Jeager in a boat or canoe would have been easier as well.
Since quality corrective lenses for people with less than 20 / 20 vision were not always available, nor generally affordable, the shorter sight radius would have made focusing on them somewhat easier, since they are a little closer in focal planes.
My personal theory as to why shorter guns were more popular in northern Europe is because of the frequency of rain and snow. Shorter guns were easier to tuck under a coat or cloak when the rain started. Concealing the shorter guns in urban areas when leaving or returning to the owner's townhouse or gunsmith in areas where thieves were common would have been much less problematic. Ease of transport in carriages would have been another factor.
The Jaeger is faster to reload, and easier to clean.
A shorter ramrod is less likely to break.
The powder quality issue may be some justification for longer barrels, but wouldn't the added dirtiness of it still be easier to remove from the shorter barrel, as mentioned above?

 

[Artificer]

Did they understand the advantage of longer sight radius of a 44" barrel compared to a 36" barrel? I don't know they did.

Did they know they would not get better powder burning when going from a 36" to 44" barrel? Again, I don't know they did as there wasn't much in the way of testing such things for most riflemen in the 18th century. I think they BELIEVED the longer barrels burned the powder better, though.

I am still puzzled at the very small sights of original rifles. Yes, they allow one to draw a very fine sight picture, but they are slower at short to medium range than larger sights. I have wondered if they shot their rifles like a shotgun at shorter ranges or if they "looked over the sights" at shorter ranges?

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

I am still puzzled at the very small sights of original rifles.

I am hugely puzzled by those tiny sights also. Why? :idunno:
Few people have perfect eyesight and optical stores were not placed every quarter mile as they are today.
I really don't get it. We know more about what King Tut had for breakfast than some things about our own ancestors 200 years ago.

 

[Zonie]

I think your underestimating our ancestors.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure a longer barrel and sight radius allows a gun to be more accurately aimed.

As for the small, low sights that are on most American antique rifles I have a theory about their hunting technique that is based on these.

Anyone who has seen these low sights know that if one is shooting at a range that is much longer than the distance the rifle is sighted in for, the barrel will block out the target from view.

I've also noticed that both the front and rear sight are rather low which tells me the rifles were usually not sighted in for long distances. (The rear sight is usually also quite low).

This leads me to believe they used their rifles much like an extension to the range typical of a bow and arrow.
In other words, they used their hunting skills to work their way into distances of 25-75 yards before they fired.

Ya. That kicks the old, "pick 'um off at 200 yards" stories in the head but when powder and lead can't be bought at a store down the street and when making a kill means the difference between eating and going hungry, it does make sense.

As most successful archers know, skillful hunting techniques can make working their way to within these ranges quite possible.

 

[Artificer]

Actually, I don't believe I am underestimating our ancestors when questioning how much of a difference there would be between the sight radius advantage of a 44" barrel over a 36" barrel, especially with the tiny front sights found on many/most of the Long Rifles.

A sight radius advantage of less than an additional inch is extremely important on a pistol with a 5 inch barrel, but an 8 inch sight radius increase (at most) is not nearly so important when talking about the difference between a 36" barrel and 44" barrel in an 18th/Early 19th century ML hunting rifle. If it were, we would still be making much longer barrels for iron sight guns (especially competition guns), even though we don't need the length for complete powder combustion and internal ballistics.

I'm sure our ancestors did sneak up on game as close as possible, when possible. Your point on the sights being made for taking game normally at no more than 75 yards is interesting. Will have to think about that more.

Gus

 

[nkbj]

Well, they developed the techniques for making the longer barrels and then for reduced weight longer barrels. Those are value added features that the end user had to be willing to pay for. Reckon they wanted longer barrels.
Now, why did they want longer barrels? This morning my guess is a fondness of fricassee. But the second cup of coffee hasn't taken hold yet so that opinion may change.

 

[Artificer]

I agree they would not have paid the extra money for longer barrels, if they did not at least believe there was a good reason for them, even if that belief turned out to be a mistaken myth - as for example: they needed the longer barrels for the rifles to "shoot harder" or fully consume the powder.

It's really a shame we don't have a few period quotes on why they felt they needed the longer barrels and it would be especially interesting if those quotes came from rifle builders/makers.

Gus

 

[Col. Batguano]

The simplest reason is because the market for them existed, and there was demand for them. As to why the style of the times asked for them, I believe it's an outgrowth from the military rifles of the times. Besses and French SB muskets of the times didn't have rear sights, so the barrel and small front bead or sight functioned that way. A much longer barrel is going to be more accurate for sighting than a shorter one. That AND the powder consumption efficiency of the longer tubes makes them more efficient.

 

[Artificer]

A much longer barrel is going to be more accurate for sighting than a shorter one.

We were doing fine until you got to this one. :grin: I know it is one of the things "normally accepted;" but if that's true, why were rifles shortened and fired at longer distances at the beginning of the 19th century through the Plains Rifles years, when still using PRB's?

Gus

 

[Col. Batguano]

I was referring to a barrel with a front bead or sight and no rear sight. Once a rear sight is installed the equation changes because precision sighting is easier. I'm happy to be proven wrong of course, but a 3/4" object 43" from your eye is going to be a smaller perspective object than when that same 3/4" object when placed 30" away. That was the general tenet of the statement.

Regarding smooth bore barrels; having no experience with them (other than modern shotguns and BP cannons and mortars), when shooting an un-patched ball (fast fire musket style) is a longer barrel generally more accurate (or precise) than a shorter barrel? I'm just speaking of the intrinsic abilities of the barrel itself, not the integration of the shooter AND the barrel.