Rifleman's cartridge box??

[FlinterNick]

Maybe and especially if they were using cartridges so there would be something to seal the bore enough to push the balls out a killing/wounding speed.

I have a morbid sense of humor, so I just thought about loading the rifle with bare ball and no patch or cartridge before it and the rifle going off and the ball barely coming out of the bore and falling in front of the Rifleman's feet. However, I don't know that would actually happen. It sounds like an interesting idea to try, to see if it would work, though.

Gus

Haha well I was thinking of the Revnant scene where DiCaprio spit three to four .28 cal balls from his shot bag into his rifle.

The spread on that would likely only be effective at the closest of ranges.

Its no wonder the Union and confederate troops loved the 1842 rifled musket, it could take a minne’, round ball or shot, rifled or smoothbore.

The progressive depth rifling in those guns was highly effective.

 

[Stantheman86]

I feel it's unlikely that many , if any at all, Rifleman used two different sized balls . Like was said you could simply drop the unpatched ball down the pipe.

Wasn't this done with the Mississippi rifle? I had read that there were cartridges with 2 different sized balls, color coded, so that they could be used as the bare got fouled.

I have no doubt that Riflemen experimented with paper cartridges. They were in use for smoothbore muskets so it seems that using a paper cartridge would have been attempted by riflemen.

 

[Artificer]

Seems to me it could be possible, relating back to Marine Corps days we were issued two mag. pouches and 7 mags, one mag stayed in the rifle and the mag. pouches went on the cartridge belt with three mags each, Bear with me on this. On departing for the republic of, our plt. Lt. had us issued another mag. pouch and three extra mags also to be placed on the belt, Ammo issue was adequate to fill all mags which totaled 10 mags. also one stripper clip of ten rounds was issued to be placed in the first aid pouch, was told this was the O s!!t supply. Now I understand this relates not to the period in discussion and size of different round balls for riflemen, Point being if one knew there was a chance of engagement it would be wise to attempt to prepare for all situations one may encounter, Being a colonial rifleman especially one with combat experience you would think past experience would negate proper prepardness, So this brings about the question and documentation of did this happen, perhaps not on a regular basis but would think a knowledgeable rifleman with experience would be of a mind set that he would. Not all but some.

Sounds like you had a SMART Lt. or at least one who wisely listened to his Platoon Sergeant or others.

Personally, I think many of us today don't consider enough that veterans who survived early battles somehow did not use "lessons learned" even though they did not call it that. I sheepishly admit I did a couple of REALLY STUPID things the first time I got shot at and was incredibly lucky to have survived them.

Gus

 

[stephenprops1]

I bet that in a hurry instead of having two different balls, a shooter would just use an unpatched ball. With no patch the ball would drop to the bottom of the barrel (as has happened to me a couple of times when the ball slipped off the patch.) --- Also, I bet the fellow that was shot with two different sized round balls was shot by two different people.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I know from shooting cartridge rounds during woods walks, all the paper wrapped cartridges have the same sized round ball. By the third shot, fouling is building up to the point that I can drop the bare ball from the paper cartridge and the fouling will hold the ball in place quite securely. I don't see any real loss of accuracy on the targets. I will also spit on the ball end of the cartridge to soften the fouling as I load the wrapped ball.

I am sure that the bare ball would be used by riflemen after the second or third shot. By the third shot most riflemen would be retreating to allow the infantry with smoothbores to open fire.

 

[Artificer]

I know from shooting cartridge rounds during woods walks, all the paper wrapped cartridges have the same sized round ball. By the third shot, fouling is building up to the point that I can drop the bare ball from the paper cartridge and the fouling will hold the ball in place quite securely. I don't see any real loss of accuracy on the targets. I will also spit on the ball end of the cartridge to soften the fouling as I load the wrapped ball.

I am sure that the bare ball would be used by riflemen after the second or third shot. By the third shot most riflemen would be retreating to allow the infantry with smoothbores to open fire.

In the 1970's, stake matches were very popular team events for rifle armed folks. The stakes were about 4-6 inches wide as I remember and there usually was 4 to 6 team members, depending on who was conducting the match. The idea was your team had to hit the stakes enough that the top had to bend over beyond horizontal to win. One shooter fired offhand, stepped back to reload while his/her teammates stepped up one at a time to fire and then stepped back to reload. IOW it was continual firing pretty much as fast as one could load and often one fired at least three to maybe five or six shots before the stake got blown over. No one I ever saw had to stop and swab their bore. It should be noted this was with modern balls and patches that were as tight as anything they probably used in the period.

No account I've normally seen tells about how many rifle rounds were fired and that's a shame. At Saratoga, Dan Morgan had smoothbore infantry assigned to him to protect them from a bayonet charge by British Infantry. That and other aspects of that battle seems to suggest the Rifleman could at least gotten off quite a few shots, though I don't know how many.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

one thing to consider in regards to riflemen (both regular and irregular) is that they were often supported by infantry (as Gus mentioned above). How many circumstances existed when riflemen were rushed by the opposing infantry ?

Strategically riflemen fought from distances greater than 100 yards and were likely able to retreat long before any enemy advanced on them.

The need to reload in a hurry or rush without having a difficult round to pound down seems like a rare occurrence.

In-fact one of the only battles i can think of where this may have been an actual problem would have been the Alamo as many of the Alamo were civilian volunteers armed with rifles. At the Alamo men were armed with multiple muskets and pistols as well as rifles as it was a very desperate situation for them. Having balls of many diameters might have been their only option too having been outnumbered and under siege.

 

[longtoothpard]

I’ve never seen a reference to a ‘riflemen’ cartridge box, however I have seen a Hessian Jaeger’s cartridge Box.

I’d assume that a British Rifleman was considered a form of ‘light infantry’. The caliber weaponry used by these units varied from .62 - 66. Belly Boxes and Carbine Boxes would make sense to me.

American Riflemen Units of the War of 1812 and Mexican American War used a Riflemens Pouch with a shoulder .54 cartridge Box for the 1803 Rifle, Common Rifle’s and later Mississippi Rifle.

The Rifle Regiment in the War of 1812 used a pouch and horn, but also a "belly box" which contained paper cartridges. I could be wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that riflemen were used with regular line infantry (I assume on the flanks) and in a standup fight they carried cartridges in the belly box. I don't know for sure, but assume the cartridges may have had unpatched balls, so the rifle could be loaded quickly like a musket, but with no accuracy.

In the Mexican War the US Regiment of Mounted Rifles carried paper cartridges with patched balls in a cartridge box mounted on a waist belt. Samuel Chamberlain's famous watercolor image of the Mississippi Rifles at the Battle of Buena Vista shows them using 1841 rifle cartridge boxes on waist belts. The Regiment of Voltiguers in the Mexican War were issued regular ball pouches with brass powder flasks. To my understanding, rifle balls carried loose in a pouch or wrapped in a cartridge by the Mexican War were pre-patched when issued.

 

[Artificer]

one thing to consider in regards to riflemen (both regular and irregular) is that they were often supported by infantry (as Gus mentioned above). How many circumstances existed when riflemen were rushed by the opposing infantry ?

Strategically riflemen fought from distances greater than 100 yards and were likely able to retreat long before any enemy advanced on them.

The need to reload in a hurry or rush without having a difficult round to pound down seems like a rare occurrence.

In-fact one of the only battles i can think of where this may have been an actual problem would have been the Alamo as many of the Alamo were civilian volunteers armed with rifles. At the Alamo men were armed with multiple muskets and pistols as well as rifles as it was a very desperate situation for them. Having balls of many diameters might have been their only option too having been outnumbered and under siege.

At the Battle of Saratoga, Dan Morgan had the Riflemen stationed in the woods and with Infantry Support. I think they probably shot more rounds that day than most any other battles.

Dan Morgan went on to win a number of minor battles, but was never given promotion to Brigadier. Since he had advanced sciatica, he decided to hang it up until recalled later in the War to save the War. In the Southern theater, he showed all the "know-it-all" generals how to fight and defeat the British Regulars when he "Cannae'd" them at Cowpens.

Too bad more American Generals didn't learn to think outside the box like he did.

Gus

 

[oreclan]

Seems like it would have been easier to change the thickness of the patching rather than carry multiple sized balls.

Or load with a "naked" ball as has been seen in reports. I have easily hit a man sized target at 50 yards using a .490 unpatched lead ball in my .50 caliber Reading School flintlock .

 

[FlinterNick]

At the Battle of Saratoga, Dan Morgan had the Riflemen stationed in the woods and with Infantry Support. I think they probably shot more rounds that day than most any other battles.

Dan Morgan went on to win a number of minor battles, but was never given promotion to Brigadier. Since he had advanced sciatica, he decided to hang it up until recalled later in the War to save the War. In the Southern theater, he showed all the "know-it-all" generals how to fight and defeat the British Regulars when he "Cannae'd" them at Cowpens.

Too bad more American Generals didn't learn to think outside the box like he did.

Gus

the Southern Strategy was really doomed for the start, no matter how good the British fought, they were always outnumbered and limited on supplies.

the folly in thinking they could conquer Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina and eventually Virginia with 10,000 men was stupendous.

Clinton was really in over his head. Personally I think the War was lost for the British once Howe resigned, Howe was cautious but for good reasons. He knew he couldnt’ rely on loyalists and he knew his armies always were at risk of being cut off by much smaller bands of militia and continentals.

The idea of loyalists outnumbering the rebels in the South was a doomed idea, Morgan knew this and took advantage of by marching in circles until he found the right ground and setting to destroy the British.

Makes you wonder if Sam Houston studied it before San Jacinto.

 

[Artificer]

Makes you wonder if Sam Houston studied it before San Jacinto.

Possibly, but I don't know one way or another. I DO think Mad Anthony Wayne used some of Morgan's tactics, but he was also smart enough to TRAIN his Army before he began campaigning. He remembered the lessons learned from Washington at Valley Forge.

Gus

 

[oreclan]

Possibly, but I don't know one way or another. I DO think Mad Anthony Wayne used some of Morgan's tactics, but he was also smart enough to TRAIN his Army before he began campaigning. He remembered the lessons learned from Washington at Valley Forge.

Gus

Wayne did not like rifles, if fact he had his Continentals from Western Pennsylvania / Virginia trade them in for muskets and bayonets.

 

[MTCossack]

I've not seen any evidence of cartridges and boxes among American riflemen of F/I and AWI periods. As mentioned, maybe German Jaegers.

I had thought for some reason that British riflemen in the Napoleonic wars were issued a smaller size ball in their cartridges for quick loading (compared to their loose balls to be loaded with patches), but looking back through my books, I'm not seeing it. There is an interesting quote from a rifleman in Spain stating that they carried "50 rounds of ball cartridge, 30 loose balls at our waist belt, and a flask and a horn of powder."

It seems like it could be practical in the moment to have undersized balls only loaded in paper cartridges to be loaded musket-style in an emergency. That way you wouldn't have to think about which is which. But it could be miserable from a logistical standpoint.

 

[Artificer]

Wayne did not like rifles, if fact he had his Continentals from Western Pennsylvania / Virginia trade them in for muskets and bayonets.

Yes, but Wayne used his rifle "regiments" (actually undersize Battalions or oversize Companies) very well. Wayne also followed some of Morgan's tactics very well.

Gus

 

[MTCossack]

one thing to consider in regards to riflemen (both regular and irregular) is that they were often supported by infantry (as Gus mentioned above). How many circumstances existed when riflemen were rushed by the opposing infantry ?

Strategically riflemen fought from distances greater than 100 yards and were likely able to retreat long before any enemy advanced on them.

The need to reload in a hurry or rush without having a difficult round to pound down seems like a rare occurrence.

In-fact one of the only battles i can think of where this may have been an actual problem would have been the Alamo as many of the Alamo were civilian volunteers armed with rifles. At the Alamo men were armed with multiple muskets and pistols as well as rifles as it was a very desperate situation for them. Having balls of many diameters might have been their only option too having been outnumbered and under siege.

Actually, situations where riflemen were at a disadvantage due to their slow reloading and lack of bayonets happened often enough to be noteworthy in the AWI. In The Book of the Continental Soldier it has a page of period quotes about the riflemen, including some that were highly critical:

Colonel John Simcoe, Queens Rangers: "their not being armed with bayonets, permitted their opponents to take liberties with them which otherwise would have been quite improper."

Another British officer (Kindig also quotes this in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle: "..about twilight is the best season for hunting rebels in the woods, at which time their rifles are of little use; and they are not found so serviceable as a body of musketry, a rest being requisite at all times, and before they are able to make a second discharge, it frequently happens that they find themselves run through the body by the push of a bayonet, as a rifleman is not entitled to any quarter."

Another: "Riflemen as riflemen only are a very feeble foe and not to be trusted alone...they must ever be supported by regulars, or they will constantly be beaten in, and compelled to retire."

There were more, but I'm tired of typing them. Most critical comments came from British officers, and so could be interpreted (as Kindig did) as evidence of that they felt intimidated by the riflemen and felt the need to belittle them. But they do seem to provide evidence that it was not unheard of for British troops to meet unsupported bodies of American riflemen.

Basically, I agree with everything you say about how riflemen could be used to best advantage, except that it might not have been as rare as you think that riflemen not used in that way - and found themselves in a vulnerable position in which they would need to reload quickly. This also would explain the need for the folding pikes that some riflemen were issued with.

 

[Red Owl]

I have limited knowledge but I'll throw out some thoughts. I was under the impression that a musket was the standard battlefield weapon and fired in unison put enough projectiles into the air to damage the enemy. The rifle was a whole different matter, aimed fire at a particular target, such as an officer. I don't believe that a large quality of shots was something expected of riflemen. In some instances I think they showed up with a loaded rifle and fired that charge, reloaded and fired one more round, and then often retreated due to the threat of an enemy bayonet charge. There were a few contract rifles to which a bayonet lug was affixed but I think tomahawks were usually issued to the riflemen. Interestingly, even up to WWII infantry training books gave instructions for attacking someone with a tomahawk. The hawk could be hooked over the bayonetted long arm and control it. I never heard about using 2 different sized balls but that might make sense. Does anyone know of any swabbing used? What I mean- you fire a shot and there is fouling. You load from a horn-obviously a no-no now a days, then run down a swab/wad to push the fouling out of the bore and over the powder, then the ball on top.

 

[Artificer]

Actually, situations where riflemen were at a disadvantage due to their slow reloading and lack of bayonets happened often enough to be noteworthy in the AWI. In The Book of the Continental Soldier it has a page of period quotes about the riflemen, including some that were highly critical:

Colonel John Simcoe, Queens Rangers: "their not being armed with bayonets, permitted their opponents to take liberties with them which otherwise would have been quite improper."

Another British officer (Kindig also quotes this in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle: "..about twilight is the best season for hunting rebels in the woods, at which time their rifles are of little use; and they are not found so serviceable as a body of musketry, a rest being requisite at all times, and before they are able to make a second discharge, it frequently happens that they find themselves run through the body by the push of a bayonet, as a rifleman is not entitled to any quarter."

Another: "Riflemen as riflemen only are a very feeble foe and not to be trusted alone...they must ever be supported by regulars, or they will constantly be beaten in, and compelled to retire."

There were more, but I'm tired of typing them. Most critical comments came from British officers, and so could be interpreted (as Kindig did) as evidence of that they felt intimidated by the riflemen and felt the need to belittle them. But they do seem to provide evidence that it was not unheard of for British troops to meet unsupported bodies of American riflemen.

Basically, I agree with everything you say about how riflemen could be used to best advantage, except that it might not have been as rare as you think that riflemen not used in that way - and found themselves in a vulnerable position in which they would need to reload quickly. This also would explain the need for the folding pikes that some riflemen were issued with.

There was a LOT of deserved criticism of the Riflemen by Patriot Commanders early in the War, as well. The book, Colonial Riflemen of the American Revolution by Joe Huddleston lays out where in camp they wouldn't take orders, wouldn't do necessary camp chores, wouldn't stand sentry duty, were generally "unruly" at best, often got drunk in camp and generally came off as Pompous A's in camp. It further infuriated other Patriot Soldiers the riflemen got paid more than them. THEN the "God's Gifts to the Patriot Army" got their butts handed to them by the British. Now of course these criticisms should also be laid on their Officers, who let them get away with most of it and did not enforce even minimal discipline.

Though no one I know of comes right out and said it, Dan Morgan got them squared away. This as much because they respected and/or feared him, but also because since he had a reputation as a good brawler back home, probably would have literally knocked their block off if they didn't obey him.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I have limited knowledge but I'll throw out some thoughts. I was under the impression that a musket was the standard battlefield weapon and fired in unison put enough projectiles into the air to damage the enemy. The rifle was a whole different matter, aimed fire at a particular target, such as an officer. I don't believe that a large quality of shots was something expected of riflemen. In some instances I think they showed up with a loaded rifle and fired that charge, reloaded and fired one more round, and then often retreated due to the threat of an enemy bayonet charge. There were a few contract rifles to which a bayonet lug was affixed but I think tomahawks were usually issued to the riflemen. Interestingly, even up to WWII infantry training books gave instructions for attacking someone with a tomahawk. The hawk could be hooked over the bayonetted long arm and control it. I never heard about using 2 different sized balls but that might make sense. Does anyone know of any swabbing used? What I mean- you fire a shot and there is fouling. You load from a horn-obviously a no-no now a days, then run down a swab/wad to push the fouling out of the bore and over the powder, then the ball on top.

Hi Red Owl,

I think it would be best to reply in two parts.

Throughout the 18th century, DISCIPLINED bayonet armed Infantry was what won battles, if sometimes not wars for other reasons.

One of the BEST things that happened to the Patriot Army was when Von Steuben taught drill and maneuver, some bayonet training and discipline at Valley Forge. THEN the Patriot Army coming out the next spring could stand up and fight British Regulars on their own terms and win, as long as they were led correctly.

Some to many of the Patriot Commanders tried to use Riflemen just like Musket/Bayonet armed Infantry and that was a terrible mistake. That set Riflemen up to be "permitted to have undue liberties taken with them" by British Regulars. Patriot Commanders just didn't figure out how to use Riflemen properly as a Supporting Arm until Daniel Morgan did it at Saratoga, where he asked for and got Infantry support to protect them from bayonet charges. That way they could effectively load and fire individually "at will" with aimed shots to do their most damage.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I have limited knowledge but I'll throw out some thoughts. I was under the impression that a musket was the standard battlefield weapon and fired in unison put enough projectiles into the air to damage the enemy. The rifle was a whole different matter, aimed fire at a particular target, such as an officer. I don't believe that a large quality of shots was something expected of riflemen. In some instances I think they showed up with a loaded rifle and fired that charge, reloaded and fired one more round, and then often retreated due to the threat of an enemy bayonet charge. There were a few contract rifles to which a bayonet lug was affixed but I think tomahawks were usually issued to the riflemen. Interestingly, even up to WWII infantry training books gave instructions for attacking someone with a tomahawk. The hawk could be hooked over the bayonetted long arm and control it. I never heard about using 2 different sized balls but that might make sense. Does anyone know of any swabbing used? What I mean- you fire a shot and there is fouling. You load from a horn-obviously a no-no now a days, then run down a swab/wad to push the fouling out of the bore and over the powder, then the ball on top.

Part 2

Before I get into this, I should state I'm a HUGE believer in learning and teaching bayonet skills to every Marine even in the modern era of the fully automatic capable Infantry Rifle and once they get that down pat, to teach the use of the tomahawk and fighting knife.

OK, so I have done a lot of research into bayonet training in the 18th century of the British and American Armies. Even British Manuals at best show only a few rudimentary techniques and not something I would call anything like comprehensive training. The British Army corrected that around the turn of the 19th century when they first published a pretty good bayonet drill. We Americans had nothing like that until George McClellan directly copied and STOLE the French Bayonet Manual and published "his" Manual of Bayonet Exercise: Prepared for the Use of the Army of the United States in 1852.

Actually, the only 18th century British Bayonet Technique I know of and that was taught to any part of the British Army and worked well, was something they seemed to have come up with on the fly before the Battle of Culloden Moor. The British Soldiers were taught NOT to stab directly ahead as normal, but to stab the soldier to the left of the one in front of him. This took away the Jacobite Highlander's advantage of normally much better close combat skills with the sword and was a huge surprise to them in that battle. I DON'T know if they ever taught more/other British Soldiers to do even that, though. I SUSPECT 18th century British Veterans taught at least some techniques to other soldiers, but I've never found documentation for it.

There is plenty of documentation of Riflemen using their rifles like "clubbed muskets" in the AWI, but even though I WANT to find documentation or their experienced use of tomahawks in hand to hand fighting, there is little to no supporting evidence/documentation of that. I don't want to call this an historic conclusion, but that seems to suggest many if not most Riflemen weren't that well trained in hand to hand fighting with tomahawks.

Gus