Rifles of the frontier militia?

[tenngun]

Your right there.
Jäger means hunter. There is a German word for rifle ( Busch???) that should be paired with it . So the translation would be ' hunters gun'. When we say jäger we are just saying the first part.
The Jagar troops of the AWI , the hunters, had been recruited from game keepers and foresters. So they carted a hunters gun.
The word gets snapped inter drink ' hunters master' as a boost to give people returning from the hunt. Then they can sit down to a hunter snichel ' Jagar snichel' .

 

[tenngun]

We do the same thing with rifle. Rifle means grove, or even valley. Our guns aren't groves but have grooves cut in the barrel. So we should say what they often said then. ' rifle gun'. Same with fowler. That's a word that means a guy hunting birds. He may have a net, or a throwing stick, or a fowling piece.
Don't we get lazy in our speach :rotf:

 

[George]

The Jagar troops of the AWI , the hunters, had been recruited from game keepers and foresters. So they carted a hunters gun.

THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE
May 25, 1776
LONDON, January 10.
THE following intelligence was communicated by an officer of rank in the army:
"Government have sent over to Germany to engage 1000 men, called Jagers, people brought up to the use of the rifle barrel guns in boar hunting. They are amazingly expert. Every petty Prince who hath forests, keeps a number of them, and they are allowed to take apprentices, by which means they are a numerous body of people. These men are intended to act in the next campaign in America, and our Ministry plume themselves much in the thought of their being a complete match for the American rifle-men."

Spence

 

[azmntman]

"a complete match for the American riflemen"


Maybe not so complete :rotf:

 

[Artificer]

Actually, many of the German Jaegers did quite well against Americans with Long Rifles in the AWI.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

After all many of the American rifleman were cosines of them same jagers.

 

[Treestalker]

I wouldn't have been wanting to be exposed at any distance from either one in the AWI, nor a modern Marine sniper today. As they say, you can run, but you'll only die tired!

 

[Chowmif16]

Artificer,
The contract for muskets that you quoted can give us an idea of how productive an individual gunsmith might have been.
The first contract was for 1476 guns distributed amongst 11 gunsmiths. If we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had the entire period from the origination of the contract until the last day of the month due, then they had 9 months. 1476/11=134 guns per gunsmith equally distributed (a huge assumption). 134 guns/9months = 14.9 guns per month per gunsmith shop.
The second contract didn't have as defined a time period, but since they were due in November of the same year, let's assume that they also had 9 months. 2000 guns made by 17 gunsmiths results in 13 guns per month. Not far off from the previous number of 14.9.

I think the thing to remember is that by this point, a gunsmith will have had several apprentices, and may have indeed been more of a shop supervisor than hand laboring gun stocker. I would guess that to produce that number of guns, they must have been such.

I would also guess that they were not hand forging locks and barrels. If they were, they must have had a lot of skilled manpower.

 

[satx78247]

I cannot say either YES or NO to your belief that the average frontier family at the time of the AWI, had only one firearm & that one firearm remained at home, when the militiaman reported to duty.

I can tell you from period documents from Revolutionary Texas, 60 years later, that MANY militiamen joined the army of GEN Houston without any arms, other than a knife or axe.
(IF they even had a knife/axe. - Some walked to GEN Houston's camp with only the clothes on their back.)
Our little, often hungry/barefooted, Texas Army was mostly composed of POOR small farmers & small business people from our few towns. Nonetheless, because of Houston's use of "scorched earth", the cold/rainy weather, the poor condition of GEN Santa Anna's army & the bravery of our "amateur troops", our forces won.)
MOST of those unarmed recruits were quickly armed with the multitude of Brown Bess, (called escopetas) muskets or a Baker rifle that had been surrendered to Col Ben Milam's forces at The Battle of San Antonio.

Btw, after our Revolution was won, GEN Houston allowed his troops to take their muskets home with them for hunting/farm defense.
(I suspect that after the AWI that many a militiaman took home a musket that he had "acquired" during the war.)

Note: Inasmuch as "good ole Brown Bess" was so common in the Texas Revolution & Texas Republic, that's why I'm seeking a "well-used looking" Bess for my frontier Texas "pore boy" impression.

yours, satx

 

[tenngun]

That's a good point. Reading old wills often expose us to adults who owned little more then the cloths on their backs a pipe and such. The whaling song ' blood red roses' starts out with the line ' your boots and coat is all in pawn'.
A land owner may be 'rich' having a home, warm place to sleep and a full belly every day, but might own little else.

 

[satx78247]

YEP. 100% CORRECT, imo.

My family emigrated to Texas TWICE & both times fleeing the Army.

The 1st group arrived in New Spain in 1818-19, fleeing from persecution by The GA Pony Clubs & the US Army.
(The "motto" of The GA Pony Club members was: "No dog, No pig, no ***** in America".)
AND
The second group fled to Texas, about 2 steps ahead of the angry Unionists, in July 1865- February 1866.
(Former CSA Partisan Rangers were REALLY unpopular with the Unionists after TWBTS.)

BOTH groups , upon arrival, found that they had escaped one dreaded enemy for another even more vicious enemy: The COMANCHES.
(Those long-rifles/muskets "got lots of use" for several decades.- I've written elsewhere about my Great Grandmother fighting off a band of Comancheros in June of 1873, when my GF was still "at the breast" with a DB 14 gauge BP shotgun, a .36 caliber handgun & 2 hound-dogs.)

yours, satx

 

[Artificer]

I think the thing to remember is that by this point, a gunsmith will have had several apprentices, and may have indeed been more of a shop supervisor than hand laboring gun stocker. I would guess that to produce that number of guns, they must have been such.

I would also guess that they were not hand forging locks and barrels. If they were, they must have had a lot of skilled manpower.

First, I enjoyed reading your post. :thumbsup:

You are correct that when they referred to "Gunsmith's," they meant the shop ran by a Gunsmith who was the "Master of the Shop," but also those who worked for him. A Gunsmith may have had one, two or more Journeymen as well as Apprentices doing "grunt work." They may also have hired people to saw out rough gunstocks from planks and perform other labor that did not take much gunsmithing skill, during just the period they were working on each contract. Those trained as Jointers or Carpenters could have helped a lot in turning wood slabs into rough gun stocks, for example.

Some Moravian Gunsmiths most likely called on the "Unmarried Men" who lived together in a sort of "Men's Dormitory" in their community and were studying various trades or were already trained, but could be "hired on" just for the period of the contract.

It would be truly fascinating if someone could research just how many people were involved in each shop when they worked on those contracts.

13 to almost 15 Rifles a month was a high rate of production in the period before machines that made interchangeable parts and sped up production. I very much agree they were almost certainly buying locks rather than making them and also most likely buying at least rough bored barrels from Boring Mills. After all, the Boring Mills would have loved to get into the profitable trade to supply enough barrels for those contracts as well.

I do wish to mention I don't believe that was anywhere close to the common "production Level" of new rifles made by those Gunsmith Shops when they were not working on those large contracts, though.

Gus

 

[Gene L]

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.

Well, while more experienced, I don't see how a gun without a rear sight could be fired accurately at any range over 50 yards or so. The British Army didn't have a command to "aim" in their manual of arms. It was "ready, present, fire." Modern shotguns with rifled slugs can do pretty well on out there with a front bead, but the rifled slug is a whole nother matter from a round ball.

While I know it's dangerous to generalize, I thought most men except townies kept a weapon at home for protection against unfriendlies. Residents of Boston or Manhattan may not have, but the 2nd Amendment kinda reflects on the need (although later in time) to have a gun of some kind.

 

[Artificer]

You should look at this link that better explains how the British Army really did start aiming as early as the FIW.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/


Our first U.S. Militia Act of 1792 was just the latest in a long line of Militia Acts the Colonies had enacted for well over 100 years by that time.

http://www.history.army.mil/reference/mamil/MAMIL.HTM

https://patriotpost.us/documents/47

Gus

 

[Chowmif16]

I do wish to mention I don't believe that was anywhere close to the common "production Level" of new rifles made by those Gun Shops when they were not working on those large contracts, though.

Gus

Gus,
Too right. Although I fear we may be running off topic here,
Your quote above brings to mind Jacob Dickert. While we always think of him as a master of wonderful Lancaster long rifles, he did branch out and produce a great number of contract muskets during the AWI.

It shows that they adapted to times of need and hired more labor and such to satisfy the market.
In the off times, they then must have scaled back and produced guns for the civillian market.
The time period you described is just after the formation of our country when we needed to establish a military. The Dickert production was at a time when the nation needed arms for war.

To transition to the topic at hand, this gives a fair amount of latitude in the gun one might choose. Add to that the amount of cross border travel and trade and the possibilities are wide.

Cheers, Chowmi.

 

[tenngun]

Noting the above reference to lots of poverty, lots of people didn't own lots of stuff. A farmer in Mass.New York near the city or around philly might not own a gun. Many people lived in 'safe' communities. Even farmers lived close to others. Most people knew most people that lived near them. Crime was rare, Indian attacks were a frontier thing.
The war started when the Brits tried to seize stores of arms at concord. Families on the frontier probably didn't need a store of arms as they had Thier own.
For sure a man with a musket or a fusil can't compleatly with a man with a rifle. However a man who never had picked up a gun until he got a kings musket or a committe of safety gun given to him will not shoot as well as someone who had hunted deer on English moors or American forest with a fusil. Keep in mind that Canadians who lived in the same type of environment hunted and fought with smoothies and never got a taste for rifles.
Keep in mind that ships mostly fought at fifty yards or less. American privateers were puting rifleman, mostly recruited in Maine aboard Thier ships.

 

[satx78247]

Did the Canadians fail to use a lot of rifles because of the dense woods/short ranges, a great deal more game OR??

yours, satx

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Locks were certainly imported by the barrel from England before the war and France during the war. The barrels of a rifle however were hammer forged from flat pieces of wrought iron inserting a mandrel once the sides started curving up to keep the barrel channel open. After completing the hammer forging of the skelp, the mandrel was removed, the inside of the barrel was reamed out to make it straight, and then the rifling was done.

If you're not familiar with that process, take a look at this link to Toad Hall who still makes barrels in this manner. He's making a pistol barrel in the example, which was much quicker to make, but the process is the basically same just on a larger scale. He also built and uses his own reamer and rifler - pretty interesting to look through.

Toad Hall Barrel Forging

It wasn't until the 1840's that Remington was able to build machinery to drill out a barrel. So I don't believe these "Boring Mills" had anything to do with rifle barrels. All the references I've found to "boring mills" had to do with boring canon barrels. Have you ever seen any reference to them being used for rifles? The whole reason the price of rifles was 3 times that for a smoothbore was because of the time and effort it took to make a rifle barrel by hammer-forging.

Again, drilling a rifle barrel out of solid stock wasn't successfully done until the 1840's by Remington at which time they dominated the market making barrels for rifles. As far as I know there was no shortcut to making rifle barrels and the only answer was to have a number of skilled blacksmiths at work to complete rifle contracts of that size.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[tenngun]

Did the Canadians fail to use a lot of rifles because of the dense woods/short ranges, a great deal more game OR??

yours, satx

That could be, but even in the 1840s it was commented on that French Canadians used fusils, while Americans reached for a rifle. An HBC official said that a rifle wasn't worth the expense since a fusil shot as well as a rifle to sixty yards. The prairie and steppes of Canada are as open as America.

 

[Artificer]

Dan,

The 18th century boring mills I refer to were making small arms barrels and not cannon barrels. The earliest gun boring mill in Pennsylvania, of which I am aware, was erected when Robert Baker formed a partnership with his son, Caleb and on August 15, 1719 on Pequea Creek.

Gus