54 Ball,
OK, thanks for the reminder on the 15 L/C lock plates.
Naphtali,
Since they were both military rifles, then I would suggest the only important points of comparison are how good they were in that role and then compare them that way to each other? I don’t pretend that this is a complete list because there are some points on which we don’t have really good information. The most notable example of that is how good were the standard trigger pulls of each rifle compared to the other rifle? Also, I don’t know if there was a side by side comparison of accuracy ever done in the period?
M 1803 Rifle
This rifle was used successfully during the invasion of York and the Battle of Sandy Hook, as well as some other engagements.
Advantages:
1. Double necked Cock that was stronger than the Baker’s Swan neck cock.
2. As 54 Ball already mentioned, easier to load with one standard issue ball size.
3. Wood Half Stock less likely to be damaged than a full stock rifle.
Baker Rifle
Unlike the M1803, which did not see as many variations, it has been suggested that with so many variations of the Baker, it is hard to describe a standard Baker rifle. There were some unsuccessful and/or poorly conceived variations of the Baker rifle; including the "Musket Caliber" one and the "split stock" one. If we leave those aside and concentrate on a sort of generic Baker rifle, then I suggest the following list applies:
Advantages:
1. Sling swivels and sling issued with the rifle. This is not only an advantage to carrying the rifle, but also an advantage for accuracy, as they taught British Riflemen to use it as a “Hasty Sling” to make effective accuracy better.
2. FAR better front and rear sights. The front sight was also Iron/Steel and thus was more robust and less prone to damage. The rear sight had a flip up sight leaf for long range shooting, which again, gave it more effective accuracy.
3. Had a bayonet. Now I admit the Baker’s sword bayonet was not as effective as a socket bayonet, BUT it still had a bayonet and thus better protection for the Riflemen, as well as an offensive shock weapon. It seems we Americans forgot or ignored the painful experiences of not having bayonets on rifles during the AWI, but the British did not.
4. Rifle balls issued with patches sewn around them.
5. Two issued sizes of rifle balls. The larger size balls were no doubt more accurate at longer ranges and the smaller size could be loaded fast both after the bores fouled and when larger bodies of opposing forces got close. Of course having two sizes of balls were more difficult for logistics, but the British Army was better at that than we Americans were.
6. Shorter than the M1803 and thus easier to handle and load from kneeling, sitting or prone positions. (Yes, the British actually considered these things even during the development stages of the rifle.)
7. Full stock actually provided more protection to a Soldier’s hands from burns when the barrels heated up in combat firing.
8. Made in shorter barrel lengths for Cavalry usage.
9. The larger ball size bucked the wind better at combat ranges.
10. Better at effective Combat Accuracy.
Overall, I believe the Baker Rifle was a much better Military Rifle than not only the M 1803, but also the M 1814 or M 1817 ”“ even though the latter two had bayonets. (Of course, even though the latter two had bayonets, it seems they rarely issued the bayonets! You can’t fault the rifles for that, though.)
Gus
