Roger's Rangers-musket accuracy

[Many Klatch]

Rogers Rangers were the equivalent of the Special Forces today. Today's Special Forces seem to have been given a lot of leeway in the arms that they carry. I am guessing, that Rogers Rangers and other special light troops of that era carried what arms that they were issued with whatever modifications that they could get by with that wouldn't upset the brass too much. So sawing off 7 or 8 inches of barrel and leaving the bayonets at home would be the kind of thing that would slide by.

Many Klatch

 

[Oudoceus]

The barrel on an M4 is 5 1/2" shorter than the 20" barrel on the standard issue M16A2. Even today, size matters!

 

[Alden]

But the M-4 still takes a bayonet, even today. And it's the amazing longer (than the standard M-9/10) OKC-3S for the Corp...
:blah:

 

[TinStar]

From the few books I have read the brass didn't have a ton of respect for RR until they proved their worth and then were given some leeway. Heck, the Crown was even reluctant on the pay too.
Also their style of fighting was more Indian like as they were fighting them and the Frenchie "woodsrunners" too. (Courier de Bois sp?) So bayonets maybe weren't that important to them, but knives amd tomahawks were.Just MHO.
Don't have any documentation.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[pargent]

They did good work , I feel that the issue was with the pay (Rangers got more than Regulars ) and money repeatedly kept going missing .

 

[Dphar]

The French found, in 1818, that with the then standard ball size a musket would strike a target TWO METERS square 88% of the time. 88 hits from 100 shots. Increasing the ball size increases the percentage to 95. But still a target 6 ft 6" square is about 5 times the surface area of a man.
I doubt that Rogers Rangers muskets were significantly better.
George Hanger, a British officer during the Revolution stated that if not too ill bored "and many are" a common musket will strike a man at 80 yards and usually at 100, but at 150 a man would be very unlucky to be struck and at 200 one might as well shoot at the moon. How the "ill bored" muskets shot is not mentioned. I suspect that Roger's Rangers were better shots than most infantry men.
The Americans almost always used Buck and Ball in issue ammo for the musket. Rogers used buck and ball for the same reason. They were trying to compensate for the inherent inaccuracy of the arm.

Dan

 

[George]

Benjamin Robins, in his study of ballistics before 1750, found pretty fair accuracy at 60 yards. From Essay on Shooting, Cleator, 1789:

"Mr. Robins secured a musket barrel upon a block of wood, and firing it with a ball, at a board of a foot square, 60 yards distant, found that it missed the board only once in sixteen successive discharges;"

Spence

 

[palladius]

Dan,

At what distance were the 1818 French experiments at the 6x6 targets?

 

[Birdwatcher]

What I'm wondering is, how did they carry them on the march? Slung on shoulder muzzle-down?

In any event, being 5'6" myself, it ain't the length of the barrel when shooting in the woods that would trouble me, but the length of the barrel when it was slung.

And much more'n the barrel hitting branches and stuff when aimed, tripping on the durned musket when hurrying through the woods, or have it sticking out to the side if slung diagonally across my back WOULD be a big deal.

Ain't head this mentioned, maybe most guys are taller'n me, but Roger's Rangers weren't.

JMHO,
Birdwatcher

 

[Many Klatch]

I lifted the following Ranger information from another website. This information helps to explain why there are so many opinions on what the Rangers used. They were experimenting with what firearm was suitable. So depending on what year you are referencing you could be right or wrong.

Many Klatch

As to Ranger arms- it appears that each year they seemed to vary by company and year.

1755- their own weapons
1756- pattern 1730 Brown Bess
1757 - evidence of 100 rifles (not long rifles- german rifle carbines with bayonets and steel rammers) along with the previous Brown Bess. Interesting line of research would be if the large # of rifles in the Battle on snowshoes were part of why it was such a big loss for Rogers. Accurate, but slow to load- not great for buck and ball... just a thought.....
1758 - Apparently a phase in of the small bore carbines over bess - also those who went to Louisbourgh had British Artillery (Highlander) Carbines
1759 - smallbore carbines
[/i}

 

[BillinOregon]

Great old thread. I am trying to resist the urge to shorten my Pedersoli Bess, as it has already been messed with.

 

[RAEDWALD]

about 30 years ago a friend had a 69 calber smoothbore carbine it was patterned after the 1858 enfield carbine in percussion... this came out of India in the 50's or 60's.... the rear sight was basically a "U"

It sounds like this was an Indian Army or Police smooth bore carbine variant of the Pattern 1858 in 0,656" bore.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I am trying to resist the urge to shorten my Pedersoli Bess, as it has already been messed with.

PLEASE Don't.
For one reason, you lose a lot of your resell market if you ever divest yourself of it..., not many units used short versions of the Bess
Second..., folks speculated that Rogers could and did a lot of things BUT they forget that the muskets were not Rogers'..., they were the property of The Crown and he would've had to pay for each Bess he shortened.
Third, the timeline posted by Many Klatch does not mention the muskets that Rogers ordered made in the colonies..., and we don't know if he had them made to full bess length 46", or to the "new 42" length" or if he had them made to artillery carbine length. We DO know they were field test fired by the Royal Artillery in the colonies.
So really if you want a shorter musket, I'd suggest you do what I did and get a .65 caliber Artillery Musket from Loyalist Arms. Yes the parts are of Indian Origin, but it is cheaper than the Pedersoli Bess Carbine.

LD

 

[BillinOregon]

Dave, no worries. I once owned a Miroku Bess with a barrel that someone had cut to about 30 inches. The darned thing sure was handy, but nostalgia can be expensive.

 

[FlinterNick]

There were a bunch of 7" barrel cutoffs found on the island where Rogers Rangers camped near Fort Edward. They also found about 250 graves on that island so there was a lot of activity on it.

The Rangers were known to shorten their Brown Bess, they were also known to carry several different kind of loads for their weapon. Standard issue cartridges, powder horn, "pea sized" shot, loose ball.

My semi-educated guess is that their loads could change as tactics dictated. If they needed accuracy they could load a ball with a patch. If they wanted to add shot for buck and ball they could do that. If they were in a firefight they could use the cartridges so they could load faster.

As to accuracy. I shoot a Pedersoli Bess Carbine. With a .715 ball, .010 spit patch and 90 to 120 grains of 2F I can generally hit what I am aiming at. I have a couple of cloverleaf targets from 25 yards and I have hit and knocked down bear silhouette targets at 120 yards.

The Bess is a reasonably accurate weapon in the hands of an experienced shooter with the correct loads.

BTW, the earlier versions of Roger's Rangers furnished their own weapons and gear. It wasn't until the British Army realized that they needed a force to counter the Indians and French that Roger's Rangers got regular Army supplies.

Many Klatch

Modern day made reproductions loaded with modern day powder, patches and balls are probably significantly more accurate than an origional period musket in the hands of a ranger in 1755 Or later.

Its a hard judgment to make on accuracy of the original period guns.

 

[LSU520]

PLEASE Don't.
For one reason, you lose a lot of your resell market if you ever divest yourself of it..., not many units used short versions of the Bess
Second..., folks speculated that Rogers could and did a lot of things BUT they forget that the muskets were not Rogers'..., they were the property of The Crown and he would've had to pay for each Bess he shortened.
Third, the timeline posted by Many Klatch does not mention the muskets that Rogers ordered made in the colonies..., and we don't know if he had them made to full bess length 46", or to the "new 42" length" or if he had them made to artillery carbine length. We DO know they were field test fired by the Royal Artillery in the colonies.
So really if you want a shorter musket, I'd suggest you do what I did and get a .65 caliber Artillery Musket from Loyalist Arms. Yes the parts are of Indian Origin, but it is cheaper than the Pedersoli Bess Carbine.

LD

I wouldn’t shorten a pedersoli bess to carbine length, I’d just sell the Pedersoli bess and get a carbine kit from The Rifle Shoppe or even use a short barrel fowler.

 

[LSU520]

Dave, no worries. I once owned a Miroku Bess with a barrel that someone had cut to about 30 inches. The darned thing sure was handy, but nostalgia can be expensive.

I have the Navy Arms Bess Carbine by Miroku, this matter had no nose cap, nicely done musket. In need of a new stock though.

 

[tenngun]

Just shooting in the dark here.
What was shooting accurately meaning?
The bess loaded with an undersized ball in standard paper cartridges as issued to the army was not the best shooter. It was not made to be.
A man is about a foot and a half wide and two feet from shoulder to hip. Any hit in that square will take a man out of the fight
Even today few people would survive a hit by a musket ball in the torso.
A bess loaded with a standard musket load might hit the figure of a man three times in five at a hundred yards. I wouldn’t try deer hunting at a hundred yards with any of my smoothies. But I think more then one smoothie shooter today could hit a torso sized target four out of five, maybe nine out of ten.
So
Was ranger accuracy based on a tight load? A tightly loaded bess will outshoot a standard military sized cartridge. And even though it might not make a hundred yard hunter it could be a hundred yard man stopper.
We think in terms of paper plate sized groups for deer hunting, or four inch groups or six inch or what have you as your standard.
Was there a concept of accuracy that was relative to military that’s out of step with our tiny bulls eyes that we shoot today in competition?

 

[LSU520]

Just shooting in the dark here.
What was shooting accurately meaning?

Accuracy here I think takes many forms, to me with a smoothbore musket, its simply hitting the target At 25, 50 and 75 yards.

The bess loaded with an undersized ball in standard paper cartridges as issued to the army was not the best shooter. It was not made to be.

Not at all, the Bess loaded with a .69 ball in paper is not accurate, while some things can be made to improve it like paper quality and grease and powder charge, its still not very accurate in the end.

A man is about a foot and a half wide and two feet from shoulder to hip. Any hit in that square will take a man out of the fight

Was ranger accuracy based on a tight load?

My muskets work best with a well greased wrapped ball, I place the wrapped ball over wadding, tow or pulled husk rope.

 

[Cattman]

this has nothing to do with rodgers rangers but i will reply anyways. the french indian mixed bloods of what is now northern n.dak and southern canada cut the barrels very short on their english trade rifles. i would think about 12 to 16 inches long. they rode up along side a buffalo and put a ball in its lungs. kept doing that until they got all the buffalo they wanted or run out of them. they hunted moose with they same guns. walked up next to them in thick willows and put one ball in their head. not for long range shooting. when i lived with them and worked in their federal hospital i hunted deer with one who used a 12 gauge old but in good shape long tom. he would shoot slugs and get a good group at 100 yards with it. no rifling, a smooth bore. thats all he used for deer. took about 16 deer a year with it for his large family and extended family. also a moose or two for winter meat.