Rifle Method smoothbores???

[54ball]

I have been doing lots of research lately about Revolutionary Riflemen. I have also studied the Battle of New Orleans.

I have a flintlock smoothbore and I find it pretty accurate to 60 yards. With a rear sight I feel I could extend it's range at least another 20.

We all know that a smoothie with a patched ball is pretty accurate within it's limits. With a rear sight like a smooth rifle I think a shooter could come close to good accuracy at 100 yards.

This has made me think that "Rifle Fighting" with a tight fitting patch and ball may be more of a method than the arm itself. It has been proved a Brown Bess with a tight fitting load is very accurate for a longer distance than traditionally accepted.

At New Orleans several statements were made about the accuracy of Col. Coffee's men with their rifles and guns.

Do you think that many of the famous rifle battles may have had some men using smoothbores in the rifle method?

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I have yet to find any 18th century evidence of using a patched round ball in a smooth barreled gun. The writings I have come across present the 18th century mindset that the purpose for patching around a ball was to seal rifle grooves only. Plenty of evidence and documentation of varied wadding going on though.

A heavily coked barrel along with a ball in a paper cartridge for military situations could possibly get progressively tighter. I don't know.

 

[nkbj]

They had more day to day experience with their arms and the knowledge of how to get the best accuracy. Fewer mineral deficiencies and no TV. Higher IQ's. My guess would be that they used a tight patch when it suited them.

 

[Wes/Tex]

I've found practically no references to patched balls in military use, excepting dedicated rifle use. This, of course, doesn't mean it was NEVER done but viable records are tough to locate.

As for military sights on muskets, the two examples that come to mind are the M.1809 Potsdam musket used by the Prussians from that date through it's percussion conversions starting in 1839. The "Light Infantry" version of the Brown Bess also had rear sights and was specifically designed for the regiments of the Light Brigade, the non-rifle companies of the 60th and the non-rifle companies of the "Light" companies of the KGL. I've owned a M.1809/39 that probably came into this country during the War OF Norther Aggression (yeah, I know!). The front sight is actually a cast in bump on the front barrel band and it helps to be sure the band is turned to the same place each shot..."Hold on Ludwig, I gots'ta crank this verslugginer thing to the left". All seriousness aside, it shot in a dinner plate out to about 85 yards using a "13" guage scissor mold of unknown origin and made a super parade boomer when wadded with pink Easterbasket grass! :rotf:

 

[goon]

Depends on who's doing it. I'd think that regulars firing in volley at another regular unit would just use loose fitting balls in paper cartridges and reload as fast as possible.
I'd think that militia forces would be much more likely do do whatever they pleased and load a PRB if they could have used the extra range and accuracy.

FWIW, I am reading Anderson's "Crucible of War" right now and just read that at Quebec the British loaded their muskets with two balls for the first volley against Montcalm's mixed force. When I read that, the thought of twice as many .75 caliber balls coming at me entered my head... HOLY manure!
Still, it seems that the idea of MORE projectiles seemed better to their commanders than the use of more accurate projectiles.

 

[spudnut]

Any original referance Ive ever read refer to wad or wadding a ball in a smoothbore,fowler,or musket and reads patched ball or shot when refering to a rifle.
I use paper cartridges in my Bess but it's still kind of a patch as it wraps around the ball when I slide er down,It works for me there but in my French musket I always use cloth patch and have no luck with paper cartridges in that one. :idunno:

 

[tg]

I know some folks who shoot smoothie quite well out to 80+ yds most do well to shoot to 50 yds with or without a rear sight for hunting purposes Iwould not want to go mich past 60 with my rear sighted smoothrifle even if my eyes were still sharp, without the rifleing the ods of a flyer are enough to cause me to back off for hunting purposes, and I to hve not seen any references for patching in smoothbores though the use of the smoothrifle is an interesting issue as if one had a rifle and patched it and also had a smoothrifle or have had a rifle in the past how would he load the smoothrifle for best accuracy, I suspect patching saw some limited use in smoothbores but not likely in the first half of the 18th century as the wadding in smoothbores was common before the rifle became common.I use both usually a patch for the best first shot accuracy though Ihave hard time knowing there is that much difference.

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

At Friendship on the smoothbore silhouette ( NMLRA rules no rear sight ) we shoot patched ball out to 120 yards on the bears. The military used
undersized balls wrapped in paper cartridges to defeat black powder fowling. The back country militia was issued nothing so they used what ever they had. A paper cartridge load would be kind of useless in a hunting or non military situation. Paper cartridges did not do well in the rain. It is not hard to imagine the militia boys using patches, their hunting loads.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

It is not hard to imagine the militia boys using patches, their hunting loads.

"Imagine" is the key word here. I think it may be possible as well and can imagine it but it is only speculation. I can also envision someone in that time wearing moccasins like that of the Poppen or Dyer style as the simplicity of design and materials were available but they did not exist then.

Not only do we have the written record that gives all kinds of civilian accounts of wadding and none for patching (so far), we also have the archeological record of dug and sunk civilian guns that have been found with wadding and no patching.

Has anyone ever pulled a live load out of an old 18th or 19th century smoothe gun that had a patched round ball in it that was not loaded after 1950? I have pulled quite a few wadded loads out of old guns but none with PRB.
Patched round balls in smoothbore guns seem to take off during the 1970's after the muzzleloading revival and really take steam during the "smoothbore" fad that was started by rifle savvy buckskinners, reenactors and target shooters at Friendship.

While I think period use of PRB in a smoothe gun is imaginable, there is no evidence to support it and in the least it was not a common procedure.

I am continuously looking for information to change my mind though. If some information arises to support it's use, it will have to be quite a bit to show it's commonality compared to wadded loads.

James, (who enjoys shooting patched round ball hunting loads in his 20 bore piece but won't accept that the 18th century boys did until he sees some evidence) :hatsoff:

 

[dhobbs]

James,
This is a question I have pondered for some time and I have come to the same conclusion. Several years ago I had a guy named Dave Wagner build a "Carolina Gun" for me.(unfortunatly Dave Passed away a few years ago...he was a great gun smith) My main area of intrest is the Southern Deerskin trade and this gun is the most common type of gun that 18th cen Creeks used to hunt with. For years(like you)I had always shot PRB out of my smoothbores because all the guys in the club used that same practice. About 5 years ago I started to experiment with loads that do not use a patch.(In the book "Colonial Frontier Guns" there is a picture of part of a dug gun that when they examined(cut into the breech area to check metal composition)it had a load in place...powder & ball...No patch. This got me to start trying various loads and ball sizes to see what type of accuracy I could get out of a non patched load. To date I have killed two deer and came in second in a smoothbore match using the following load. .595 ball(my bore measures .600)...wasp nest for wadding & powder(60 grains).My point is that, for me I wanted to have experience with not only shooting a historically correct reproduction but to try to use a historic type of load as well.

Great topic,
Have a good day,
David

 

[Tkendrick]

So what do the records say about the wadding? Was it dry or lubed, does there seem to be a standard material, or was it pretty much what ever was at hand? I would speculate (and that is all it is) that your average frontier farmer wasn't going to spend what little cash he had on a specific wadding, but I have been known to speculate wrong before. I have seen a lot references to wasp nests both on here and in other formats, was that the only thing used?

 

[tg]

I use wasp nest but do not know of any period references, it was probably used in the Renagade type California guns of the time.

 

[dhobbs]

Guys,
As to specific references to wasp nest I have none. I do belive there is a western refernce to pieces of blanket for wads. I have also used sweet gum leaves for wadding as well. I really do not think this is an item that was purchased but was just what ever material was avaliable at the time. A buddy of mine uses corn husk to wad with.....I was just trying to use a material that a Creek of that time period would have avaliable to them. My main focus of this experiment is to see what type accuracy is possible with out patching the ball. I personally have never bought into the idea that Indians were loading these trade guns like rifles. If the european quotes seem to point in the dirrection of using wadding...I would imagine that loading method would carry over to Native Americans as well.
This past winter I competed in a match that is smoothbore flint guns only. The shots were averaging 25 - 60...lots of clang targets...full size british targets(its a french fort). This is a team match and time is a factor. My team mates & I all shot the match using just powder & ball....not even using any wad. We started the match with wadded loads but after the first shot...powder and ball. We came in second but I was on a team that won the year before. We pretty much used the same loading method. The idea of the match is to try to replicate the speed of firing if involved in a firefight. It is run very safe but we put ALOT of lead down rage in a short amount of time!

Have a good weekend,
David

 

[Many Klatch]

For the first shot in a battle situation I could see having a patched or wadded ball. Once the fouling starts to build up in a smoothbore patching isn't really needed for targets out to 30 or 40 yards. I have shot with bare ball quite a few times when in a hurry and never noticed a big reduction in accuracy at close up targets.

I have used "horse weed" (anything with big leaves that is growing next to me when I am loading). I have done this when shooting shot and forgot to bring any wadding. Horse weed works good for one shot, but the mess that it makes inside the barrel will keep you from getting the next ball down the barrel. The dry corn shuck sounds interesting. I'll have to try that next time I'm out.

Many Klatch

 

[goon]

OK, so I just read Rogers' Journals and he tells of one action in which he and four other men fired on a boat carrying several Indians and a Frenchman at one hundred yards and killed five of them.
So I'm wondering...
1. Was he a liar? He no doubt was experienced at estimating range so I don't think he'd have messed that up by more than a few feet.
2. Did he and any of his men carry rifles? He speaks of using his "fusee" to club a Frenchman at one point, which means he's carrying a smoothbore, right?
3. Were they really that good, or were they just lucky? I'd have thought that if he and all his men were carrying smoothbores which were loaded with loose-fitting balls, they'd have waited for the enemy to get much closer before firing.
4. Last, I'm wondering if they were using tight-fitting patched round balls.

 

[tg]

There may be more to the story, he and four others fire on and kiled five Frenchmen,now that would be a feat with rifles shooting at men in a boat,5 shots for 5 kills, did they have the opportunity to fire several rounds each at a boat fighting to get upstream and out of range? exageration of distance of a kill is not a new concept either, interestintg story at any rate

 

[Marc Adamchek]

Goon- You raise an interesting point, along with individual issues streaming from that point which can't be ignored. It is always disheartening when one has to tear down a historical figure of renown, but if we are to completely ignore the statement of Maj Rogers you cite and NOT pursue the smoothbore accuracy implications further, then we are left with the image of this man as braggart and liar. If this image is then accepted as fact, we then have to question the entirety of his reporting. Ugly, revisionist stuff I for one abhore.

 

[Many Klatch]

My Brown Bess Carbine with a .715 ball and a patch over 90 grains of 2F will ring a 36" gong at 100 yards offhand 3 out of 5 times if I do my part. With that patch ball combination I can get off 1-1/2 shots a minute with plenty of time for a long slow steady aim. If Rogers and 4 of his men were shooting at a canoe and they had 3 minutes of time before the canoe got out of range that would be 4 to 5 shots per man or about 25 shots on target.

A Brown Bess ball will skip off of water if it isn't too rough so I think that would help improve the chances of hits. I don't have a problem believing that 5 men with Bess's or Fusees could kill 4 or 5 men in a canoe at 100 yards. Remember those are 12 gauge ball they are tossing around and they will kill. I wonder if the kill count also counted the wounded that fell out of the canoe and couldn't swim.

Many Klatch

 

[goon]

There may be more to the story, he and four others fire on and kiled five Frenchmen,now that would be a feat with rifles shooting at men in a boat,5 shots for 5 kills, did they have the opportunity to fire several rounds each at a boat fighting to get upstream and out of range? exageration of distance of a kill is not a new concept either, interestintg story at any rate

I agree that would be a feat even for rifles - and respectable even if they were all armed with AR-15's and working out the same scenario today. When you imagine squinting down the barrel of a fusil or fowler or musket with only a front sight and a rough sight picture at a seated man at 100 yards, who is also moving...

I'll quote it as best I can. It's an entry dated October 7, 1755, on page 3 of the copy I have from the library but on page 13-14 if you look it up on Google books.

Rogers says he took five men to reconnoitre the French at Ticonderoga. In his words:
"While we were viewing these, I observed a bark-canoe, with nine Indians and a Frenchman in it, going up the lake." He continues saying that shortly after "we put put ourselves in readiness to recieve them in the best manner we could, and gave them a salute at about 100 yards distance, which reduced their number to four."

So I was slightly wrong in that there were six Rangers firing and that each apparently made a kill at a hundred yards with his first shot. I suppose they were firing at more of an area target than a point target - I'm not sure how big a canoe is but it was apparently big enough to hold ten men, but they each would have also presented a smaller target since they were sitting down.
I'm wondering if maybe in such close conditions one ball might have been able to pass through one enemy and kill another. Or they were just remarkable marksmen who knew tricks that no one bothered to write down for us to experiment with. Or Rogers exaggerated the range - but by sixty yards?

My Brown Bess Carbine with a .715 ball and a patch over 90 grains of 2F will ring a 36" gong at 100 yards offhand 3 out of 5 times if I do my part. With that patch ball combination I can get off 1-1/2 shots a minute with plenty of time for a long slow steady aim. If Rogers and 4 of his men were shooting at a canoe and they had 3 minutes of time before the canoe got out of range that would be 4 to 5 shots per man or about 25 shots on target.

A Brown Bess ball will skip off of water if it isn't too rough so I think that would help improve the chances of hits. I don't have a problem believing that 5 men with Bess's or Fusees could kill 4 or 5 men in a canoe at 100 yards. Remember those are 12 gauge ball they are tossing around and they will kill. I wonder if the kill count also counted the wounded that fell out of the canoe and couldn't swim.

Many Klatch

Skipping off the water is something I hadn't thought of. I'd think a smaller .65ish caliber ball from a fusil would behave about the same way.
But there was apparently no reloading - just each man taking careful aim and firing one shot.
My quick estimate of my own size would put my own body in a seated position about 35" tall (counting my head) but only about 18" wide - which is only about half the size of your gong, which you still only hit about 3 out of five times at that range, on a range, with no chance of being discovered, scalped, or recieving return fire... (just saying)

 

[tg]

I wonder if they raised their barrels and rained down a deluge of large buck and ball loads.