Round ball range

[faw3]

Since Gary is gone a few days I think I'll ask here and not the round ball site (theyd just get into it aint hu-mane to shoot deer that far and its got nothing to do with that) Waiting for Gary's Sharpshooters and Sniper's 1750 thru the Civl War book Im more into the Rev war, if RBs are so weak after 100 to 150 yds how did it kill the Brits and horse's at 3 to 400yds? Must of been big bored like Wshingtons 2oz sniper rifles or was it..... Fred :hatsoff:

 

[CrackStock]

Well, this is a forum for the Rev War and the projectile of that conflict was the round ball, so...

You were discussing round ball accuracy on a board devoted to paper punchers and hunters who want very precise accuracy. The Rev War was primarily fought in situations where men launched large volumes of large smoothbore musket balls in volleys to shock the enemy into fleeing. Even if a ball was moving slowly in its flight, a hit from a .690 ball anywhere on a man pretty much assured that he would be out of the fight or at least lessened in his ability to do battle. (Baron DeKalb being a very notable exception) The general practice of infantry was to glance to your right and guide on your sgt who yelled out commands and gave a guide with his weapon. You tried to mimmick his elevation and angle of fire. With such a volume of fire and a degree of experience on the part of the sgt and his men, some good effect should be seen.

Yes, there were a few dedicated riflemen with special guns who were able to act as early snipers with patched round balls, but these were the exception rather than the rule. Some battles such as King's Mountain were unique opportunities for riflemen to demonstrate the benefits of the rifles over the smoothbore muskets in limited use.

As to long range use of the patched round ball, can it be done? Yes. Was it common? No. Can it be done today? Yes, but there are far better projectiles for long range shooting.

The home cast PBR is my favorite ammo. I try to extend the the range on paper and steel targets as an exercise, but I do recognize its limitations when hunting.

CS

 

I have before me a book called THE FRONTIER RIFLEMAN, by LaCrosse. It is basically 200 pages of quotes and documentation of the long range abilities of the American riflemen and the fears of the British officers that were their targets.

We are speaking of warfare, not target shooting or hunting, and we are working in the 18th century.

In that day any hit was as good as death. No medical miricles, just gangrene and slow miserable death. Muzzle energy, retained energy at target, shock effect all ment nothing.

They still mean nothing in long range warefare. While in the Army I preped rifles that were intended for long range use. We were using 7.62 weapons, sometimes with Lake City Match ammo but usually with the stuff we popped out of machine gun belts. The standard philosophy was sight the gun at 200 yards, if the target was between the muzzle and 800 yards you aimed at the head. You would hit the sucker somewhere between the top of his head and his ankles! We were not after Rambo's "one shot one kill" sniper hype. We were after hits. Hits anywhere. Hits from nowhere scared the enemy beyond belief.

With a .50 cal muzzleloader you can do much the same out to 300-400 yards. Sight in for 100-150 and anywhere between the muzzle and 400 yards you hold on the head. If there is no wind and the sights hold you will touch the enemy with a bullet somewhere between his head and his ankles.

There is no safty, there is no security, there is just the sudden impact of the bullet and seconds latter the sound of the shot. You look at the small nasty wound and know your leg is going to come off!

The rifleman's target is not an 8" circle of vital organs on a deer, it is 6' tall and 2' wide and if you hit it anywhere you have done your job.

 

[faw3]

Thanks for the imput, Ive been running a PM with Gary his up comeing book and I'm intrested in the Rev War shooters, came here so I wouldnt get any hunting thing going, lots of sites for that, Gary before he took off gave me a list of books to read or think about buying. Ive just been going over "after action" reports, Even back then if you was a Brit. Seem's they got worried fast about how far and at who the "reb's" are shooting at. Also saw the story in MB about the first scope on a flntlock in the USA. I had always thought the rifles were small cal 30 to 40 cal not much to kill a horse a guy was on at 400 yds :shocked2: If this has been kicked around before sorry, Im on AOL and cant go back more than 30 days,about 5 postings. (why it was made to not work with AOL is beyond me even Claude didnt know and worked for months on it) so if it has if someone would put the "link" up , much thanks. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[OTHERN]

Many years ago at a shoot we shot at a 55 gal steel drum at about 350 yds, laying on its side. Took a while to hit it, but the round ball went through the end easly and put a large dent on the other side. The shooters were using 45's 50's and 54's.

Othern

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Thanks for the imput, Ive been running a PM with Gary his up comeing book and I'm intrested in the Rev War shooters, came here so I wouldnt get any hunting thing going, lots of sites for that, Gary before he took off gave me a list of books to read or think about buying. Ive just been going over "after action" reports, Even back then if you was a Brit. Seem's they got worried fast about how far and at who the "reb's" are shooting at. Also saw the story in MB about the first scope on a flntlock in the USA. I had always thought the rifles were small cal 30 to 40 cal not much to kill a horse a guy was on at 400 yds :shocked2: If this has been kicked around before sorry, Im on AOL and cant go back more than 30 days,about 5 postings. (why it was made to not work with AOL is beyond me even Claude didnt know and worked for months on it) so if it has if someone would put the "link" up , much thanks. Fred :hatsoff:

The deal with aol is that they locally cache (store) most of the sites that people hit more than once on their own servers. Doesn't matter how many times you refresh your browser, they have to refresh their servers before anything happens. Drives my wife crazy. I'll make changes to her web site and sometimes it takes AOL 2 or 3 days to show the correct and current info.

You do know that you can use Internet Explorer, Firefox, or any other browser even if AOL is your ISP? If the only connection you have is an AOL connection, use it to get online and then open up the other browser and use it to browse this board. You can go anywhere you want online with another browser even if AOL is how you connect to the internet.

Don't forget to change your personal settings on the forum to show more than 30 days.

Hope this helps,
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[Wes/Tex]

The simple answer to your original question is "mass & velocity". For example, a .735" ball over 80 grains of FFg & launched from a Bess, will have a velocity of around 900 fps. Not swift by anyone's standards. But, and I do mean BUT, at 300 yards it is still ambling along at 525 fps which amounts ot 364 foot-pounds of energy with is roughly the same as the 50 yard energy of a .54 ball fired over 50 grains of FFg from a pistol. Definitely will kill you stone dead. The guys who like to pooh-pooh round balls never really look into the remaining ability to dump energy into the target. As for the 300 yard usability of a Bess, the ball will have dropped 24.5 feet below line of sight! If you're going to do it, aim high!!!!!!!

 

[Twisted_1in66]

**SNIP**
Yes, there were a few dedicated riflemen with special guns who were able to act as early snipers with patched round balls, but these were the exception rather than the rule.
**SNIP**
CS

Although most of the continentals used muskets and fowlers, rifles were not uncommon, especially from the rural troops. Most regiments had riflemen and used them as coherent groups primarily as skirmishers and flankers.

George Washington recognized their value early on in the Revolution, and had Daniel Morgan put together a rifle company of 500 men. They were from Virginia, but he'd then send them wherever he felt they were needed. They were extremely effective. They turned the trick at Saratoga, with a number of them climbing up trees well out of range of any musket and firing down into the encampments or redoubts below. When Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga, he called Morgan's riflemen "The finest regiment in the world".

Riflemen were very effective later in the war when the Brits were "holed up" inside towns or forts. No one could venture out, or in some cases even move about, without being shot by riflemen. Hard to forage for supplies if you can't even raise your head above the wall to look out.

British officers made particularly good targets because they wore a scarlet red uniform and a brass gorget - easy to pick out in a crowd. If you go to any Rev War reenactment, you'll see that the officers are very easy to spot.

For a rifle, hitting a man-sized target at 200 yards was no big deal. I personally hit a 3'x2' target at 200 yards with my .50 cal longrifle using primitive rifleman sights such as those used in the 18th century. I am not a great shot and that's really not hard to do. In Morgan's rifle company, most of the men could make such a shot at 300 yds or more.

To put that in perspective, a musket that was loaded and fired the way the British did it during the revolution, would be very lucky indeed to hit a man-sized target at 60 yds.

The Continentals weren't the only ones who had rifles. Some of the Hessian troops were Jaegers and carried the German Jeager rifles (the American Longrifle evolved from earlier versions of these rifles). The Jaegers also moved and fought as a company. Like the Continentals, they were primarily used as skirmishers and flankers.

So, I guess what I'm saying is yes, the smoothbore was the primary weapon of the Revolutionary War, but rifles were not nearly as rare as most people think.
------------------------------------------
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:

 

[davy]

Great stuff! :shocked2:

How about some recommendations on reading materials about riflemen, sniping, and such (including Morgans troops) for that period? :thumbsup:

Thanx

Davy

 

[faw3]

I just havent got around to doing[url] that..in[/url] the hospital twice last month amd a 16 year old boy wanting a truck..and on it goes. Id always thought what rifles that got used would be small cal except for Wasington's 2 oz sniper rifles,reading some of the Brit "after action reports" they even kidnapped a sniper and him aqnd his rifle went back to England to show what they had run up against. I had just thought the avg of a rifle then was 30 to 40 cal, and"The guys who like to pooh-pooh round balls never really look into the remaining ability to dump energy into the target. I guess i should try longer shots with a smaller bore, I like the 62s to much I guess, it dumps a lot of weight in something. Thanks everyone, Like Davy I would like more books on rifle snipeing from back then, Gary led me to some gteat spots but Id like more. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[davy]

I have to wonder about what we think of now as long range, and how these folks back then really thought about it? I mean these folks lived with their weapons everyday and knew them inside out. Since they depended on them for their very survial, you know they had to have shot these guns at any & every range, and pretty well knew what to expect from them from front to back, if they were worth their salt that is! :hmm:

Frankly ...I do not think I would have liked one bit to stand on a line facing these guys with their rifles especially at any range that I could see them at! :shocked2:

Davy

 

How about a shingle between your knees at 60 paces or a tin cup on your head? :shocked2: Those fellas were good shots and there friends trusted there shots. (As long as there was no women between them) :hmm:

 

[Wes/Tex]

From the other side:

Though I've not seen the original or a complete copy, Lt. Colonel St. George Tucker, whose house is one of the sights at Williamsburg, mentioned how astounded he was one evening while his unit was operating around the fringes of the trenches around Yorktown. Since it was dusk and the light was failing he was shocked that his men were taking hits from the British lines. Enemy fire was light but extraodinarily accurate. Five or six of his militia riflemen had been wounded, one mortally. He noted one shot from over-the-way had felled three of his men at once! Guess what??!!

How about Ansbach Jaegers!! No kidding! How soon they forget!!! Big ball in the 60's size whistled through three guys!! Ach du lieber!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wes/Tex]

Also, there's a book out presently titled "The Sniper At War: From The American Revolutionary War To The Present Day". Might have some detailed info that would help. :hatsoff:

 

[faw3]

Ok I'l ck on that one. Gary gave me some of the ones he likes. and some sites he gets on, if you like snipeing from the Rev to CW youd like these, let's hope Gary is back soon to share. MB back in 2002 thru 2004 had a few good ones from the 1700s. Again thanks Fred :hatsoff:

 

[davy]

Ok I'l ck on that one. Gary gave me some of the ones he likes. and some sites he gets on, if you like snipeing from the Rev to CW youd like these, let's hope Gary is back soon to share. MB back in 2002 thru 2004 had a few good ones from the 1700s. Again thanks Fred :hatsoff:

It always amazes me when it seems folks think that the American rifleman was the only one present in the Rev War that was capable of long distance accurate rifle fire. Where do they think we got the technology for those long rifles but from weapons like the Jaeger. :shake:

While the emphasis and numbers of accurate firearms especially at long range is open to debate in that time frame, there WERE in fact accurate arms on both sides, used to their full potential or not. :hmm:

From what I have seen those Jaegers were capable of great accuracy in experienced hands, just like the Bakers in later years, and with bigger balls ta boot! :shocked2:

Davy

 

[faw3]

last night going thru old Muz Blast about the longest shot in the Rev War, we took out a Redcoat at 600 yds, in the same war 3 of our guys got nailed by one shot from a big bore sniper rifle from the other side from over 100 yds, Now thats penetration! And foound the story of the first scoped sniper rifle, now thats one I would love to read more about. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[hawkeye1755]

Captain Barber of the Duke of Cumberland Sharpshooters wrote in 1804 that a third class marksman should be able to put 5 out of 6 balls in an 8“ circle at 100 yards, a second class marksman must be able to do the same at 200 yards, and a first class marksman must be able to do the same at 300 yards but he could use a rest at this range.
But 600 yards? Wow!!Open sights? :shocked2:
:hatsoff:

 

[faw3]

Open or peep , Ive got to reread the story and I'll let ya know unless someone has got it handy. FRED :hatsoff:

 

[Twisted_1in66]

It always amazes me when it seems folks think that the American rifleman was the only one present in the Rev War that was capable of long distance accurate rifle fire. Where do they think we got the technology for those long rifles but from weapons like the Jaeger. :shake:

While the emphasis and numbers of accurate firearms especially at long range is open to debate in that time frame, there WERE in fact accurate arms on both sides, used to their full potential or not. :hmm:

From what I have seen those Jaegers were capable of great accuracy in experienced hands, just like the Bakers in later years, and with bigger balls ta boot! :shocked2:

Davy

Davy you're absolutely right. Where do you think the American Longrifle came from...from German gunsmiths who primarily moved to Pennsylvania and set up shop making rifles. They brought their rifle making skills with them from Germany, and the transition from the short, slinged, heavy caliber (typically ~.62) Jaeger rifle to the long, graceful, American Longrifle began. You can argue greater accuracy due to longer sighting plane with the American Longrifle, but the Jaeger's were plenty accurate.

Jaeger troops were used by the British primarily as skirmishers and flankers, just like the Continental Line units did. I think the biggest difference of the influence of rifles in the Rev War was that Washington recognized the value of long distance, accurate rifle fire and had Daniel Morgan raise a company of 500 riflemen to exploit that advantage. He then sent them wherever he figured they needed to be employed and did so with devastating effect.

Before I became interested in Rev War reenactment, I had no clue that Jaeger rifles had been around since the 1600's, or that the Brits had organized troops who used them. The Brits just didn't exploit the advantages the way the Continentals did.

----------------------------------
Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup: