Roger's Rangers-musket accuracy

[toot]

Dan,

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

6x6,foot or 6x6 inches? target?

 

[tenngun]

I don’t know about the 6x6 target. I did read about French experiments shooting a company sized target. Six feet by thirty feet. It was shot at ranges out to three hundred yards

 

[smoothshooter]

"rangers" used a wide variation of guns - not only smoothbores. how said that a shooting at whatever target was with smoothies?

i red the story about the cut-back bess muskets that is said the rangers used them - cannot believe this story.

rangers and their tactis of fighting asked for individuals, not for a company of musket shooters, standing shoulder to shoulder. rangers have been "single shooters" so to speak. why should they cut back their accuracy?

who said the cut back muzzles, found on roger island, are from that timeperiod?

ike

I don’t see why the cut back musket barrel controversy is such a big deal.

Of course it was done from time to time, in almost all times and places. It’s only human nature to alter equipment, especially if it is your property, or issued equipment that someone does not expect to have to turn back in at a later date.
A lot of muskets had extremely thin muzzles, which means they were inordinately likely to get dented or bent out of round. Simple fix is to cut a few inches off the barrel.
I doubt that shortening a barrel 4 or 5 inches on something as long as a standard issue musket improves handiness much, but young men have always been suckers for contrarian style, so it’s possible one or two guys shortened their barrels, others thought it looked cool, and altered theirs too.
Men who lived the eventful ( and usually shortened ) life of a colonial Ranger with it’s regular exposure to human brutality at it’s worst tended to do what suited them to a large degree, and to Hell with anyone who had a problem with it.

Human Nature Does Not Change.

 

[BV]

I have no idea what is historically accurate, but I can tell you for certain that if the rangers of yore were anything like their successors of the early to mid 2000's, cutting a few inches off some musket barrels was the last thing anyone in command would be concerned about them doing.

 

[FlinterNick]

I don’t see why the cut back musket barrel controversy is such a big deal.

Of course it was done from time to time, in almost all times and places. It’s only human nature to alter equipment, especially if it is your property, or issued equipment that someone does not expect to have to turn back in at a later date.
A lot of muskets had extremely thin muzzles, which means they were inordinately likely to get dented or bent out of round. Simple fix is to cut a few inches off the barrel.
I doubt that shortening a barrel 4 or 5 inches on something as long as a standard issue musket improves handiness much, but young men have always been suckers for contrarian style, so it’s possible one or two guys shortened their barrels, others thought it looked cool, and altered theirs too.
Men who lived the eventful ( and usually shortened ) life of a colonial Ranger with it’s regular exposure to human brutality at it’s worst tended to do what suited them to a large degree, and to Hell with anyone who had a problem with it.

Human Nature Does Not Change.

There is some evidence in arcehoigical digs near Ticonderoga that uncovered cut off sections of barrels ranging around .68-.72 caliber With some .75-.77 Champaign NY. What is not known is who or did this and why it was done. British, french or american. If I had to guess, it would have Likely been alteerations by Americans who canabalized parts from older models to use on restocked muskets, American muskets tended to have barrels around 40-42 inches.

The most commonly cut down muskets were french muskets as their barrels were very thin and delicate, this generally applies to the models 1728 - 1754.

There were no requirements that the British lob Off 4 inch sections of barrel to meet the new patterns of the second model, this is simply not true.

If a long land was shortened by 4” it was likely done so because of a repair or worn muzzle and there’s no evidence that this was done by rangers.

as stated above, rangers used all kinds of guns, as the rangers became a more formal light infantry unit under Simco and Butler, the muskets were pretty standard second model 1769 or 1776/77 patterns And ordinance regulations were followed.

https://amhistory.si.edu/militaryhistory/collection/object.asp?ID=448

 

[Loyalist Dave]

There were no requirements that the British lob Off 4 inch sections of barrel to meet the new patterns of the second model, this is simply not true.

Which is not what I wrote. It is well documented that several British regiments shortened their 46" barrel LLP muskets during the F&I. they of course did not do this to "meet the new patterns of the second model" because the SLP Bess did not exist at that time. However, IF one is looking for the reason the SLP was standardized at 42" instead of the long established 46", and also was not shortened further to the later 38"of what is called the 3rd Model Bess, one may point out as I did that this barrel length of 42" was used by some units during the F&I, and it's very doubtful that it was merely done to damaged muskets, as that would mean those units for some reason had an odd habit of being the only units in the British army to damage the musket barrels in such a manner that removal of 4" would repair them all.

LD

 

[FlinterNick]

Which is not what I wrote. It is well documented that several British regiments shortened their 46" barrel LLP muskets during the F&I. they of course did not do this to "meet the new patterns of the second model" because the SLP Bess did not exist at that time. However, IF one is looking for the reason the SLP was standardized at 42" instead of the long established 46", and also was not shortened further to the later 38"of what is called the 3rd Model Bess, one may point out as I did that this barrel length of 42" was used by some units during the F&I, and it's very doubtful that it was merely done to damaged muskets, as that would mean those units for some reason had an odd habit of being the only units in the British army to damage the musket barrels in such a manner that removal of 4" would repair them all.

LD

There is documented evidence that this was done to contracted Land pattern muskets, such as the Wilson muskets and other variants that were initially issued with a 46” inch barrel, while these were not considered ordinance patterns, the same concept applies.

What would have been the motivation British units to shorten the musket by 4” in great number ? I see it as speculative as to say that it was done for better mobility as lobbing off 4” is much more work than its sounds like, the stock needs to be cut, barrel pins may need to be redone, a lug needs to be welded and thimbles may need to be moved. I could see this on a few guns but tthats a lot of work all togehter.

The 42” inch barrel didn’t originate with the short land musket, some variants were made with 42” barrels like the 1744 shortland dragoon musket which was produced in decent numbers as were marine and militia muskets designed with 42” barrels.

My argument isn’t with you LD not so much as it is with the idea of a Rangers Musket that never really existed, its a made up thing. And as far as I’m concerned, its an excuse for guys who hack build Brown Bess kits and screw them up.... OH LETS CALL IT A RANGER MUSKET. Meeeh

 

[Heyyou48307]

Miss my bess ,I used to shoot it pretty good

 

[sportster73hp]

The 1805 short calvery carbine was only 16 inches. Still a smoothbore Bess.

 

[Ike Godsey]

In addition of what was said about the shortening of musket barrels for "Ranger" use, you may also consider this:

Fort Louisbourg was captured twice by the British. Well in fact, the first time in 1745, was by "American Militias" but still...
Both times the British captured a large number of French Muskets (mostly 1728 Type) - meaning several thousends of them.
In 1759 - the second capture of Fort Louisbourg, the British captured about 15.000 Muskets - or "Stand of Arms".

Those French guns habe seen service with the British military in Light Infantry and other, also Ranger, units.

In "A Soldier-Like Way, The Material Culture of the British Infantry 1751-1768", page 122 one can find this:

„As I have cut the French Arms shorter which makes them much lighter and Handyr for the Light Infantry I shall send you to Elizabeth Town Seventy five Firelocks which are for the three Sergeants inclusively 526“

The footnote 526: "Major General Amhurst to Colonel Arthur Morris, New York, 19. April 1759, ..."

Reffering to those cut down French Muskets is also this in De Witt Baileys "Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664 - 1815" on page 129, one can find the British Order:

„...and the barrels to be blued or browned to prevent glittering..."

All that said, the question comes to mind. who does need a so "specialized" type of gun?
A musket, cut back to (perhaps 37" barrel to match the British carbines, which would make sense) and with "colored" barrels (or maybe all trimmings) to prevent glitering?
Skirmishers comes to mind, also some "special operation troops" like the Ranger units? Well most likely.

Ranger warfare was different compared to the regular British military infantry units.
Rangers have been a fast moving unit, ment to fight behind the enemy lines, fighting in the woods, so "glittering" of any musket could get the unit in danger.

I believe the use of shorter guns, would be helpful for their duty.
Also I question the need and use of a bajonett for "ranger warfare". It simply does not make sense cutting down a musket an then making it longer again with a bajonett.

From all that said here over the years, and written in books etc. it s my believe that the so called "Ranger Musket" was most likely a French 1728, .69 cal. Musket, captured by the British and cut back to a 37" barrel, with all the steel parts browned - the musket maybe made fit for the use of a bajonett***

***I belive the muskets made up for the use of a bajonett, since the same type of cut down muskets went most likely to light infantry units also. And I do not think, the armorer back then did two typs of cut down muskets.

 

[Ike Godsey]

And maybe this would help too?

 

[Artificer]

There is documented evidence that this was done to contracted Land pattern muskets, such as the Wilson muskets and other variants that were initially issued with a 46” inch barrel, while these were not considered ordinance patterns, the same concept applies.

What would have been the motivation British units to shorten the musket by 4” in great number ? I see it as speculative as to say that it was done for better mobility as lobbing off 4” is much more work than its sounds like, the stock needs to be cut, barrel pins may need to be redone, a lug needs to be welded and thimbles may need to be moved. I could see this on a few guns but tthats a lot of work all togehter.

The 42” inch barrel didn’t originate with the short land musket, some variants were made with 42” barrels like the 1744 shortland dragoon musket which was produced in decent numbers as were marine and militia muskets designed with 42” barrels.

My argument isn’t with you LD not so much as it is with the idea of a Rangers Musket that never really existed, its a made up thing. And as far as I’m concerned, its an excuse for guys who hack build Brown Bess kits and screw them up.... OH LETS CALL IT A RANGER MUSKET. Meeeh

Bailey documented that P 1744 Carbines for Dragoons were used in North America during the FIW, but doesn't really go into detail on what troops had them. Though called "Carbines" it was only because the barrels were 42" and thus shorter than a Land Pattern Musket, but were still in the .76 Musket Bore. Dragoons of this period were not true Cavalry, though they could fight that way. Instead they were more like "Mounted Infantry" who rode horses to get to where they were needed, but would often dismount to fight. So the barrel length, ability to take a bayonet and Musket caliber made sense. However, there weren't any large numbers of British or British American Dragoons in the FIW.

For those not familiar with this firelock, a Picture of a P 1744 Carbine for Dragoons was taken from one of Bailey's books and is the top right Carbine in this link:

Aldhurst Arms brochure.qxd

I agree it is a bit of a mystery why so many Muskets were shortened to 42 inch during the FIW, so perhaps we should consider other things to explore a possible answer.

To begin with, Braddock's forces were the only British Forces at the beginning of the FIW that brought their Muskets with them. I'm not sure if they were re-armed with wood rammer muskets before they left the UK or if they still retained such old pattern muskets they had already been issued. Either way, I think we can at least assume they were serviceable arms. Of course a great deal of those muskets were lost in battle or had to be destroyed in the retreat.

Governor William Shirley of MA became Commander in Chief, North America after Braddock's death and defeat. He urgently requested British Ordnance send 50,000 arms to the colonies, as that was the bare minimum needed to supply British and British American Forces in America. Even if British Ordnance would have wanted to do it, that was almost the entire stock of arms they had and of course they also had to worry about arming new Regiments for the war and replacing worn out arms for other British Regiments. So British Ordnance sent 10,000 arms to the Colonies, as most likely that was all they had to spare. We have to consider North America was seen as a "back water" portion of the war, as they also had to worry about France and Spain on the high seas and on the continent.

It is well documented how bad/worn out condition those 10,000 muskets were and the bayonets and cartridge boxes that accompanied them in both "Of Sorts for Provincials" and to a lesser extent "A Soldier like Way." While it has been suggested that British Ordnance merely cleaned out the worst arms they had to send to North America, it was probably also the case British Ordnance had merely stored them after they were turned in by other British Units and had not had money or time to re-build/re-furbish them. Further, Governor Shirley had to arm both new "British Regular Regiments" raised here, though commanded by British Officers, and a large quantity of the 10,000 arms went to that cause. After that Shirley parceled the Muskets out here and there, the best he could.

Artificer lists of tools, parts and supplies sent to North America to support these arms seems by the very quantity of parts sent that British Ordnance knew the arms they had sent were pretty well worn out.

OK, got to close this, but will add more later.

Gus

 

[TFoley]

Take a look at Mike Beliveau - Duelist1954 - shooting smoothbores for accuracy out to 200 yards or so.

 

[shootrj2003]

I wonder,on a side note, why these were cast aside instead of given to the smith for recycling to knives,accessory’s ,hawks etc. how many of these barrel stubs were actually found? Surely the camp must have employed a blacksmith/ farrier/ gunsmith to repair and modify not just guns but all the accouterments necessary to a unit of fighting men,even if he was a Ranger himself when not needed as a smith.I am fairly new at specific knowledge of the Rogers Rangers but have bit of grounding on how things worked in old armies.

 

[griffiga]

I can't recall the name of the book off the top of my head(it may have been authored by Eckhert; but it spoke of Rogers receiving constant complaints from some of the British brass for contantly shooting on the island to keep up their shooting skills and loads due to the waste of powder and ball.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

It might have been "The Conquerors."