Rifles of the frontier militia?

[kswan]

Thanks, this helps out with hardware and where Im going with Caliber.

 

[Claude Mathis]

What does Jaeger mean?
Deer

Jaeger is German for Hunter.

 

[tenngun]

When the question of rifles vs fusils on the frontier comes up we want to think rifle, and that becomes our focus if we are researching it.
Unless you have taken to shooting fusils, or 'rifle mounted fusils' i.e. Smooth rifles, then you turn your research to validating that.
I THINK most people heading toward the frontier, this side of the borderlands, or beyond the pale reached for a rifle if they could. However you couldn't go in to your local hardware store and buy one.
Could a rifle maker turn out a rifle a month? With a few apprentices and even a jornyman or two could he turn out one every two weeks? A dozen or two dozen a year? Ten?
I would suspect in any area thick enough to have a militia yet thin enough to have a real Indian danger and enough game to hunt one would find a lot more people who wanted a rifle but couldn't yet get one.
Even ware smooth bores were used hunters became good shots. The British marines loved to recrute in the fens of England and north of Scotland for gamesmen and hunters. It was these boys they put in mast tips to pick off enemy officers.
I would suspect even some of the AWI ' rifle companies had some men with smoothies. After the first firefight you know some guns were hit, or otherwise broken. A boy couldn't just run to supply and draw out a new rifle. Even fourty years later at the battle of New Orleans most of the 'Kentucky Rifles' were shooting muskets, Thier rifles laying at the bottom of the Mississippi.

 

[satx78247]

Given how POOR that most frontier families were, I suspect (but cannot prove) that MOST long-arms on the frontier were smoothbore muskets & shotguns, if only because there were so many of the smoothies available for little money.

Also, a military surplus musket (like a Bess, a Charlie or perhaps a Spanish/German musket) was quite acceptable with both PRB & loose shot for hunting & farm defense, as well as militia service.
(People reported for militia duty with what they HAD.)

yours, satx

 

[Gene L]

I guess it depends on what the other factors of the frontier meant. I'm sure the "townies" who joined the militia for free booze at meetings got the minimum amount of equipment to show up for meetings. In a set-piece battle, at 50 yards and against a line of enemy, muskets were probably better. But I'm not so sure about frontiersmen. Smooth bores were no doubt cheaper, but I think they used a lot more lead and powder than a rifle. And lead and powder were also in short supply.

If I were alive back then, I wouldn't move to the frontier unless I had a rifle. Famous frontiersmen had rifles, Boone, Crockett, Murphy and others. You never hear of one being armed with a smooth bore. At King's Mountain, almost if not all Rebels were armed with rifles, and these riflemen were as poor as anyone in Kentucky. Not to say smooth bores weren't present, but they sure didn't get much recognition.

 

[Grenadier1758]

People reported for militia duty with what they HAD.

yours, satx

And if all they had was one firearm for the family, when they reported for militia duty that firearm stayed home and they expected the colony to furnish their firearm.

 

[tenngun]

I would think you right in general. Folks would get a rifle as soon as they could. I do doubt that a poor family, maybe a recent freed indentured employee would let failure to afford a rifle stop him and family moving to the frontier.
Boone had a rifle for sure, but how many of the folks that were in his first party had them? Boone was a hunter, but most of the families on that first trek were not.
The op was about a frontier malita man. The frontier was thick. On one side the wilds home to the Indian,the trader, and the long hunter. On the other side settled farmers and townsmen, who never saw an Indian, and hunted rabbit and fowl.
People bought what they needed. In the 1870s a frontiersman might have a buffalo sharps, while a prospector might have a shot gun. Both were frontiersmen.

 

[Artificer]

Could a rifle maker turn out a rifle a month? With a few apprentices and even a jornyman or two could he turn out one every two weeks? A dozen or two dozen a year? Ten?

Even ware smooth bores were used hunters became good shots. The British marines loved to recrute in the fens of England and north of Scotland for gamesmen and hunters. It was these boys they put in mast tips to pick off enemy officers.

First a note on British and later termed Royal Marines. Contrary to their American and French counterparts, British/Royal Marines did not fight in the fighting tops because they were worried about setting fire to the sails. They fought from the decks.

OK, now on to the question of rifle production.

Colonial Williamsburg's experimental archeology has come up with the figure of 400 to 450 man hours to entirely hand make a rifle from scratch. Figuring a 6 day work week at 12 hours a day for a total of 72 hours a week, a single gunsmith even with an apprentice would take quite some time to make a lot of rifles. However, even though a gunsmith could make the entire rifle from scratch, he usually did not do so before the AWI.

Most Gunsmiths here bought their Locks that were from Britain and Germany. That cut down the time to make a rifle a great degree. Both bored/reamed barrels and even rifled barrels were also imported from Britain and the Continent. Somewhere on this forum I found and reported finding a Pennsylvania merchant who ordered many rifled barrels and locks from Germany and brought them into the colonies by smuggling the barrels and locks and some other parts with the baggage and/or on the ships bringing new colonists to avoid the import duties/taxes. That was in the 1740's. Spence supplied more quotes from merchants offering imported locks and barrels throughout the 18th century as well. Even some of the brass furniture for guns was imported already cast.

Also, boring mills to make and ream barrels began to be constructed around the 1740's in this country as well, though their production did not equal that from Britain and the Continent.

Now, I have never been able to find out what the expected average labor time was to make a rifle when using already made locks and barrels, but it was certainly a lot less time than when having to make those parts from scratch. Plain rifles did not take nearly as much time as those with a lot of carving and decorated inlays and those plainer rifles were certainly more common on the frontier than fancier rifles.

May we use the 1792 Contract Rifles as a general rule of thumb as to how many rather plain rifles could have/were made in the period at full production levels? Eleven different gunsmiths took the contract on, delivering 1,476 rifles between April 1792 and December 1792. A second contract for the same weapon took place in 1794. Seventeen gunsmiths delivered 2,000 rifles by November 1794. That was a LOT of rifle guns to make and deliver by so few gunsmiths, in so little time.

Gus

 

[Onojutta]

In the period and when they wrote, "Riffle," or "Riffled Gun" or "Rifle Gun" or "Rifled Gun," etc. they almost always meant a gun with a rifled barrel.

That's my sense too. If they went to the trouble to say "rifle gun" instead of just "gun", that suggests that the adjective "rifle" was deliberate. So if that is the case, then what type of "rifle" would this have been in the 1750s?

One other caveat to the written accounts that I have mentioned. I don't have them in front of me right now as I'd have to go dig through a book that I don't have presently at my disposal, but one of the references that comes to mind is during one of the Indian attacks in the Juniata Valley in 1756, a witness wrote that an Indian smashed in someone's head with the butt of his "rifle". Now, if I am watching someone get his head smashed in and living to tell about it, I'm probably doing so from a safe distance, and my heart is probably racing with adrenaline. From that vantage point, how would I know enough about said weapon to say that it in fact had a rifled bore? In that situation, I gotta believe any firearm would look the same. That causes me to think the term "rifle" was being used generically in this case, not as detailed and reliable assessment of the specific firearm in question.

 

[Onojutta]

People reported for militia duty with what they HAD.

yours, satx

And if all they had was one firearm for the family, when they reported for militia duty that firearm stayed home and they expected the colony to furnish their firearm.

Are you sure about that? I don't have a specific reference at hand, but we often hear of the stipulation that men were required to keep a firearm in working order to be used in defense of the province. Perhaps this was meant to apply to guns furnished by the colony. To use my central Pennsylvania example again, one of the elements that left the settlers so vulnerable to the Indian depredations was the lack of guns. The communities on the frontier were desperately requesting the supply of firearms from the [pacifist] provincial government. From everything I have read on the subject, it doesn't sound like private gun ownership was too common on the mid-18th century Pennsylvania frontier.

 

[Artificer]

So if that is the case, then what type of "rifle" would this have been in the 1750s?

The problem is we have so few, if any, extant rifles from the period to draw exact conclusions.

Eric Kettenburg has what I believe is a great article on one such rifle he made, here:
http://www.erickettenburg.com/Site/1750s_Rifle.html

Gus

 

[Artificer]

People reported for militia duty with what they HAD.

yours, satx

And if all they had was one firearm for the family, when they reported for militia duty that firearm stayed home and they expected the colony to furnish their firearm.

Are you sure about that? I don't have a specific reference at hand, but we often hear of the stipulation that men were required to keep a firearm in working order to be used in defense of the province. Perhaps this was meant to apply to guns furnished by the colony. To use my central Pennsylvania example again, one of the elements that left the settlers so vulnerable to the Indian depredations was the lack of guns. The communities on the frontier were desperately requesting the supply of firearms from the [pacifist] provincial government. From everything I have read on the subject, it doesn't sound like private gun ownership was too common on the mid-18th century Pennsylvania frontier.

Militia Laws and how/if Arms were issued to the Militia varied a good deal, depending on the Colony. So what was true in one Colony may or may not have been true in another colony. For example, PA's 1755 Militia Act was QUITE different than Virginia and other colonies. https://democraticthinker.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/pennsylvania-militia-act-of-1755/

Compare this to extracts from Virginia's Militia Acts of the same general time period. http://www.flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/Research/militia_laws.htm

I can't speak for other Colonies, but in Virginia, it was common to issue out "Arms from the Publik Stores" from the Magazine at Williamsburg (when such arms were available), especially to those who were going on an expedition or some major event authorized by the Colonial Government. (Those Arms were to be returned to the Magazine after the expedition or campaign.) That way, the men could leave their own guns at home for the protection of their families. However, and with the exceptions on who were not required to possess arms by the Militia Acts, this did not relieve the common citizen from having to possess their own arms.

Gus

 

[Gene L]

I read somewhere that Eliphalet Remington bought barrels from a source who specialized in barrels. This was later in history and I don't know if the source I read was accurate, but I don't see why specialization wasn't practiced back in the day...especially later on when trade to England was constricted. I remember, also, reading in the Dixie Gun Works catalog that post AWI a lot of locks, etc, were based on the metric system in the French method.

 

[tenngun]

So how many rifles do you think a rifle maker was turning out per month?
450 hrs divided by 2 for the fact of buying imported parts, and thinking 72 hours a week and counting two men that works out to about two weeks per gun 26 per year. Thinking summer days made up for winter, and he did nothing but build rifles, no repairs or alterations or side lines or eqipiment repairs??? Today if you want a rifle from a known builder, you might have to wait a bit, I bet it was the same then.
At one time the Brits were afraid of fire in the sails but everything I've read points me to believe they were arming the tops by the F and I ( seven years war) by the napolianic wars putting swivels to the tops.
The old design for the tops was a round 'crows nest' but early in 18th century a flat platform was used, and called ' fighting tops'
Humphreies was roundly criticized for not adding a poop deck to his ships leaving the wheels exposed to enemy fire from the tops. The United States in fact got a round house added to protect the wheel.
Although official policy may say one thing captains were given broad latitude to operate in. The naval rule was no more then a dozen lashes for punishment, although logs showed a lot more. At second ushant, and Saints, the line ahead formation was abandoned in spite of the official fighting instictions. The instictions were I force but abandoned by captains at sea.
Of corse woe be the captain that ignored the rules and lost. Ask admiral Byng. Winning changed everything. Nelson could turn his blind eye to signals. After all treason never succeeds, for when it does none dare call it treason.

 

[Gene L]

I'm pretty sure the British Navy never employed riflemen. For one thing, the natural roll of the ship would discourage accurate shooting and for another, I don't know of any recorded instance where rifles were employed aboard ships. Riflemen were used in land battles.

 

[Artificer]

So how many rifles do you think a rifle maker was turning out per month?
450 hrs divided by 2 for the fact of buying imported parts, and thinking 72 hours a week and counting two men that works out to about two weeks per gun 26 per year. Thinking summer days made up for winter, and he did nothing but build rifles, no repairs or alterations or side lines or eqipiment repairs??? Today if you want a rifle from a known builder, you might have to wait a bit, I bet it was the same then.

I believe you missed the part where I explained that the 450 hrs was to build a rifle from scratch and it took much less time to build a rifle when the lock and at least a reamed barrel, if not when a fully rifled barrel, was purchased from import and used. Most American gunsmiths did not make their own locks until the AWI and many/most purchased at least reamed (if not rifled) barrels. There was no way small American Gun Shops could compete with English and Continental Lock Makers and Barrel Makers, so they purchased those items for most of their rifles and other guns.

The 1792 Contract Rifles, mentioned in my earlier post, were as close to "Mass Production" on the largest scale by American Rifle Smiths for the 18th century. Those quantities they made in such a short time was probably not indicative of the "normal" business/quantities made that gunsmiths did, unless they got State or Federal contracts during or after the AWI. However, it does reflect what they not only could, but did do when they had large orders to fill.

We are going way off topic about British Marines on this thread, so I will leave that for a different thread, except to note that Marines were not armed with rifles as a general issue arm, until after the flintlock period.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Virginia State Marines used some Rifles in the AWI; but Continental (American Navy), British and French Marines all used various types of muskets.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

To you and to Gene also. I think I wasn't clear in my post. The Brits recruited men from the fens and and scotish highlands, also game keepers, that were used to shooting, armed with fusils on land they were good shots, although not riflemen they shot well. Enlisted they were issued the Kings musket, but still were good shots, better then avarage.
Along the line of this thread, just as these Brits were good shots with smoothies so were the boys of Delmava, or New Jersey or the tide water. Such men moving on to the frontier might be smooth bore armed, and could not shoot as well as a rifleman, but could shoot better then avarage. Likewise a rifleman who lost his rifle could expect to do well with a fusil or musket. A hunter from the fens or the blue grass would likely be a better shot then a boy from Boston or philly.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Tenngun makes a good point,

At one point in the British army they had The Company of Select Marksmen....who shot the King's Musket, but were allowed to make some cartridges up that they could shoot with good accuracy for their particular musket. (iirc) The range they used to fire at for testing and qualification was 90 yards.

Also, depending on the terrain and the thickness of the old growth forest...., the advantage of the rifle might be reduced a bit....from it's greater accurate range..., down to using less lead and being able to hit a small portion of the opponent's body that was exposed...rather than being lethal at a range where the smooth bore was likely not to score a hit of any sort.

LD

 

[azmntman]

What does Jaeger mean?
Deer

Jaeger is German for Hunter.

:shocked2: I thought it was a licorice flavored shot of something (liquid) :slap: