olde tyme smoothe bore accuracy

[mark fish]

Speaking of colonial thought process.I don't think we can discount their concept of providence, that is if they did their part the good lord provides.
It doesn,t seem to me they would waste much resources refining a shot group.

 

[Richard Hare.]

I have read of native Indians spending quite a bit of time and ammo, getting the trade-guns to shoot where they were looking, carefully bending the barrels between forked tree branches.
Once they were shooting to centre, I suppose they were set, and that was it.
I suppose this type of 'accurizing' would be common among the white population also, but once she was shooting centre, no further thought would be given to it. From that point on, bringing home the bacon would be all that mattered, and some guns would gain better reputations than others!

PB.

 

[FearNot]

You have to remember, also, that in a military context at this time in history the firearm was still regarded a primarily a spear or pike of sorts. Long lines of troops faced each other at short ranges. Several rounds were traded back a forth followed by a bayonet charge. It was the close-in work that was the primary work of the soldier and this was the main emphasis of their training. Any casualties inflicted by the musket fire was a bonus, but mainly the musket fire was to un-nerve the opposition - to soften them up, so to speak - before the bayonet charge. So accuracy wasn't a primary concern in the battlefield. In the woods, providing for your family 'twas a different story. I'd expect that shooting the same firearm day after day, year after year lead to a very intimate knowledge of the range and accuracy of one's firelock without working on specific loads for various ranges and conditions. Just my $0.02 worth...

 

[Erzulis boat]

One of these days...I should make a smoothbore test arm.

Get a nice slab of wood, inlet the barrel and the lock, and securely anchor the assembly to a concrete bench.

I will precisely control all the shots with consistent weight/volume.

The projectile and powder will be subject to our modern quality control, unlike the old stuff....

I think I can guess the results.

 

[11th corps]

Maybe this has been covered before, but last weekend on the History channel I saw a show about accuracy of various rifles. They started out with a smoothbore Brown Bess musket. The "marksman" was shooting at a target -supposed to represent a barn. He didn't get within one foot of the bullseye at 40 yards. Embarrasing. But on the show it was portrayed as the fault of the smoothbore musket.

 

[biliff]

But on the show it was portrayed as the fault of the smoothbore musket

This was covered on another thread. It wasn't the musket. It was a combination of bad loading technique and bad shooting.

 

[TN.Frank]

I think a lot of the "problem" was that the British army(and most others for that matter) used a very undersize ball for the caliber. From what I've read the paper ctgs. that they used for their 75cal muskets used a .690" round ball. The reason was that the extra "slop" would aid in loading a fouled musket under the stress of battle. When you have 50 or 100 guys touchin' off their muskets all at once, in a row at the other guys that are only 50 yrds. away you don't need to be accurate, just fast.
I'm using a .690" round ball in my 75cal fowler(.748" bore actually) and I had to use old blue jean cloth for a patch to get a proper fit. I've still not shot any balls yet so I can't coment on accuracy but you do have to use a good, thick patch to take up the slop and get a good fit that'll help the gun shoot right. I may(BIG "MAY") break down and spend the money on a .715" ball mold at a later date after I see how this ball shoots. If I can hit a paper plate at 50 yrds. I'll be happy because that'll take a deer and that's all I'm looking for. IF I need more accuracy I'll use my rifle.

 

[Leatherbark]

That collector dude filled the pan overflowing on that history channel show..........He also used a thin patch and what looked like about 30gr.of powder..........He had a 2 second hangfire.LOL..............Bob

 

[rifleshooter2]

Well the some units did work on marksmanship. In the Legion of the United States the trrops were wequired to fire their muskets at a target 55 paces away at the end of each tour of guard duty. Also they had regular compition between the different sub legions with the winners receiving an extra ration of rum. On the eve of their depature from Legion Ville in 1792 a reporter from Pittsburgh witnessed one of these shooting matches.He comented that he had never seen finer shooting even at backwoods shooting matches. General Wayne even mentions several times when the Infantry out shot the riflemen in these matches. (The General rewarded them with a double ration of rum for that feat).

Andy
Legion Ville Historical Society[url] www.legionville.com[/url]

 

[whitetrash078]

Rum for good shooting? hopefully after the muskets were emptied :youcrazy: :haha:

 

[Wes/Tex]

The book "Armies Of The Napoleonic Era" by Otto von Pivka has some in-depth info about military weapons of the period and quotes from two tests done then.

A Hanoverian experiment in 1790 showed the following when fired by soldiers at targets that represented military units. The 'infantry' target was a placard 6ft tall and up to 50 yards long to represent infantry and 8ft 6in high for 'cavalry'. At 100 paces (I assume German paces) the results were 3/4 of all shots hit the 'infantry' target and 5/6 hit the 'cavalry' target. At 200 paces, it was 3/8 for 'infantry' and 1/2 for 'cavalry'. At 300 paces, 1/3 hits for 'infantry' and 3/8 for 'cavalry'. The weapon used was an infantry musket (not specifically identified) firing a 3/4oz. ball and the troops were allowed to aim for each shot.

A second test, nationality not specified, was carried out in which the soldiers were encouraged to "aim their muskets as hunters would instead of just pointing it roughly ahead and pulling the trigger". There was a second test using the military technique of point and fire as normal military would. The two targets were compared "after each had fired 1000 rounds at each of the ranges...the target represented a line of cavalry." Actual target size isn't specified but would think it comparable to the one mentioned above. The range is marked in 'paces'.

100 paces....53.4% (aimed)....40.3% (unaimed)
200 paces....31.8% (aimed)....18.3% (unaimed)
300 paces....23.4% (aimed)....14.9% (unaimed)
400 paces....13.0% (aimed)....6.5% (unaimed)

Not the do-all and end-all, but very interesting and done with the weapons of the era.

 

[jim gray]

Personally, I like to pick a load and adjust the rifle to hit rather then trying to work up a load. Guess I'm pretty much backwards to most people though

Nothing wrong with that method at all, but it didn't work as well before the advent of adjustable sights. If the old timers wanted to raise the point of impact they had to file the front sight down. That allows for a finite number of adjustments. :haha:

As for smoothbores I don't think even having a rear sight on one was very common at all.

 

[faw3]

"All the BS about picking off Redcoats with their Penn. rifles is just that", I've seen from a lot of your other postings you really know your stuff so this kind of me. Maybe you'll want to read Gary Yee's Sharshooters book when it gets away from the publisher, 200 to 400 yd shots got done and the Brits :cursing: about the "yanks" picking off officers ect. The story about G. Washington haveing 2oz ball sniper rifles made is one Im really wanting to read more about. Maybe they did whine about it to much but they did, in print in newspapers ect, couldnt even stick your head up a very little with out it going away. Fred :hatsoff: ( the key here is you said "rifles")

 

[rtguard]

Accuracy is like selling land....LOCATION....LOCATION....LOCATION
If there there's meat in the pot
It's a good shot

 

[J.D.]

As for smoothbores I don't think even having a rear sight on one was very common at all.

Check out Hamilton's book "colonial Frontier Guns" and you will find that many civilian smoothbores did have rear sights. Military muskets did not.
J.D.

 

[tg]

I suspect the riflemen long shooters idea has just been played up way past its real role, and was very much a small factor in the body count on either side, but no doubt kept them thinking about the potential of the concept, which would be a servicable weapon in its own right.

 

[Wes/Tex]

"All the BS about picking off Redcoats with their Penn. rifles is just that", I've seen from a lot of your other postings you really know your stuff so this kind of me. Maybe you'll want to read Gary Yee's Sharshooters book when it gets away from the publisher, 200 to 400 yd shots got done and the Brits :cursing: about the "yanks" picking off officers ect. The story about G. Washington haveing 2oz ball sniper rifles made is one Im really wanting to read more about. Maybe they did whine about it to much but they did, in print in newspapers ect, couldnt even stick your head up a very little with out it going away. Fred :hatsoff: ( the key here is you said "rifles")

Sorry I may have been confusing but was referring to Lexington & Concord, not the entire war. There definitely were recorded instances of sniping officers and gunners. In fact, Tarleton was on the receiving end of such an event though the bugler's horse was the only casualty. Conversely, several cases of riflemen getting run over and bayonetted by British regulars, so it was a double-edged sword.

 

[jerfrark]

tn frank nailed it. The british manual of arm stressed the speed of firing, not accuracy. In my Bess I shot a .725 and a cleaning patch to take up the "slop". I don't shoot it very often but I have no problem hitting the small targets that were used at the voue. In "my" experiance with the Pedersoli,when ball and patch were the tightest is when I got my best accuracy. The slight diffrences in powder loads didn't matter.

 

[jbg]

While this may be somewhat off topic, I really have to question the concept that buck and ball helps guarantee a hit. Having shot buck and ball numerous times, I have found that if I shot at a mansized target at anything over 30 paces, I might get one piece of buckshot along with the ball, somewhere on the target, maybe 50% of the time. That was with a 69cal smoothbore Springfield 42 with one 65cal ball and 3 30 cal buckshot over 80 grains of FFG. Did not seem to matter if I used a premade paper cartridge(and they are a pain to make), or a patched ball with the buckshot loose with paper wadding or a felt wad. I even tried a patched roundball with loose buckshot with wadded paper over it. Several guys in my unit also tried it, same results. I even tried a load of 9 buckshot. At 30paces the spread was so wide that I never got more than 3 buckshot on the target. And only twice out of 6 shots did any buckshot hit any where near what could be considered the kill zone.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Remember, in the 18th century, armies fought standing apart from each other at 50 yds, shoulder to shoulder. If you missed the soldier you were aiming at, you probably would hit one of the soldiers standing next to him, or someone standing behind him with buck and ball. A wound was a "casualty", because few men could continue fighting after being hit anywhere solid. Even an extremity wound, like in the arm, wrist, or shoulder would bleed profusely, causing him to interrupt his participation in a mass uniform attack plan. A wounded soldier was not considered to be disobeying orders or in anyway a coward for tending to his wound, and ceasing to fight.

Because most men in the colonial forces were fighting with family and neighbors, and knew everyone, they tended to keep on fighting on even after being wounded, because they did not want to let their friends down. That was not always the case with the British and Hessian troops. Far from home, and generally miserable in their treatment, both food, clothing and work, they took advantage of being wounded to tend to their wounds and leave the battlefield if they could.