The Timothy Murphy shot.

[M. De Land]

I've been doing a little research in trying to figure out what cal rifle Murphy used to reportedly kill the British officer Simon Frazier at Sara toga during the Rev. War.
So far no mention of cal that I can find. There is even some speculation that the distance was much less than 300 yards and that it was actually another one of the 500 chosen marksmen that shot Frasier from about 65 yards, shooting at the same time Murphy was from his tree stand.
Legend has it that Murphy hit Frazier on his third try through the stomach , Frazier dying that evening. Murphy with his fourth shot killed another Bristish officer galloping up with fresh orders to take Frazier"s place. This of course was with flint lock fired, rifle bored , patch balled American made long rifles.

 

[Tom A Hawk]

I have checked all the sources I can find and no rifle details are mentioned other than it was a swivel breech. Back then perhaps nobody cared enough to document the caliber.

 

[hawkeye2]

There isn't even any proof it was a swivel breech. Some sources describe it only as a 2 barrel rifle which could be a side by side (uncommon) or an under/over (rare).

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
There is no proof Murphy was even at Saratoga much less used a swivel breech. It is really interesting that his wife did not even mention his service at Saratoga or shooting Fraser in her application for a pension after he died. She mentioned his other service but nothing about Saratoga or Fraser. He is not listed on any muster rolls taken at Saratoga. Hear is a link for more.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/0...thy-murphy-and-the-power-of-the-written-word/dave

 

[Rudyard]

Chose what it was very naughty of him !. Wether if his relation also Simon was the renowned Explorer who gave his name to the great River in British Columbia ?. I once made a rude raft to run the rapids of Cottonwood canyon but in the event didn't .Perhaps just as well. Some made it, plenty didn't .
Rudyard

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Chose what it was very naughty of him !. Wether if his relation also Simon was the renowned Explorer who gave his name to the great River in British Columbia ?. I once made a rude raft to run the rapids of Cottonwood canyon but in the event didn't .Perhaps just as well. Some made it, plenty didn't .
Rudyard

Precisely......

 

[Old Timer 48]

There weren't any imbedded journalist in those days. A lot of those regulars didn't know how to read or write either.

 

[Tacksman45]

Here is an article about Tim Murphy I ran across years ago:

http://www.saratogaaoh.com/TimMurphy.html
Which leads to another article here:

https://www.americanrevolution.org/murphy.php
The second article casts doubt on the rifle Murphy used at Saratoga being the "Famed" double barreled Goulcher rifle. In fact I have never seen an example of this type of rifle, and if anyone knows what this is supposed to be I would like to see it! I agree with Hawkeye2 that If a double barreled rifle was used in the American Revolution, the chances of it being a swivel breech are highly unlikely, and a double barreled Swiss or Germanic Jaeger type rifle would be much more probable (if still rare).

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Both of the links above retell the same story for which Harrington writes there is no documentation and the origin is dubious. Harrington's point is that the story gets told over and over and then becomes "history" used by even well respected historians but when the source of the story is examined, it raises many doubts. In the Old Stone Fort Museum in Schoharie, NY there is a swivel breech rifle purported to be Murphy's and the one he used during the Revolution. To anyone with some knowledge of long rifle styles it is clear the gun was made in the 19th century. It has a percussion back action lock on which someone fashioned a "flintcock" with a percussion cup welded in the jaws where the flint would go. In fact, the rifle probably dates at least 1 to 2 decades after Murphy died. Below are photos of the rifle. It is of a style made during the percussion era. Note no wood panels along the barrels and no way to attach a pan section for a flintlock.

Note the patch box was probably added later and obscures carving that looks like it comes right off a Melchior Fordney gun from the 1830s. The museum was told that by a KRA member who is the most knowledgeable about American double rifles but it is a case that they spent too much money for it to admit the mistake.

dave

 

[Robby]

Well, whatever the exact history of this man is, according to this article he led an extraordinary life.
https://aoh.com/2018/03/21/timothy-murphy-the-irish-american-who-turned-the-tide-at-saratoga/He was also one of very few survivors at the Ambush site not far from where I live.
http://grovelandny.org/About_Us/Historical/Ambuscade/ambuscade.htmlRobby

 

[dave_person]

Hi ,
Robby, you are certainly right and there is no question he was a great historical figure, and he may be the man who shot Fraser but his service on the frontiers of NY is much better documented than his alleged service at Saratoga.

One more detail about the rifle I showed. Look at the swivel mounting. The frame is rounded. That style did not occur until the percussion era. All early colonial and Rev War period swivel breech rifles have octagon shaped frames and were likely imported from Germany. Bill Paton, a KRA member, and expert on American double guns, believes virtually all swivel breech mechanisms before the Rev War were imported and few or none made in America. He examined the "Murphy" rifle and thought it made during the 1830s or 1840s, and maybe even later. Murphy died in 1818.

Swivel breech guns, or "Wenders" where first made during the 17th century shortly after the true French flintlock mechanism was widely introduced. Wenders were popular high-end guns and the mechanisms were imported into colonial America. There are a small number of surviving Rev War period American stocked examples and they are more common than fixed double barreled rifles.

dave

 

[GAHUNTER60]

All my life I have heard about the Timothy Murphy shot at Saratoga reported as iron-clad, historical fact. I never had any reason to doubt the story, especially considering the great detail included in the account of "the shot that saved America!"

Now I find out that what I've been told ain't necessarily so! What a bummer.

Reminds me of the story of famous Russian sniper Vasily Zaytsev`s duel with the German sniper, Major Erin Konig, in the Battle of Stalingrad. The account of this faceoff is included in every article, book, and documentary on the battle. It`s an impressive and exciting story, unfortunately, it`s generally accepted that the entire account was fabricated by Soviet propaganda officers tasked with feeding positive war news to the Soviet populace.

In the George Bernard Shaw play "The Devil`s Disciple," British General John Bergoyne was asked by one of his subordinates, "But what will history say?" when the General told him that England was destined to lose its American colonies because of British leadership incompetence.

"History?" replied General Bergoyne. "History will tell lies, as always!"

 

[Eterry]

"When the Legend becomes Fact, Print the Legend!"
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Great quote Eterry!!

GAHUNTER50,
Murphy's story may be true. It is just not reliably documented and there are some bits of evidence that raise doubts. The problem is that it has been presented to all of us as established fact rather than as a story. It is like the myth of the importance of riflemen and militia during the Rev War. It wasn't hastily assembled farmers and backwoods riflemen that won the war. It was Washington and Greene keeping the army together, trained American soldiers fighting in the traditional manner, with the help of the French and the exhaustion of British support for the war that won it. The British high command in America was not incompetent in the least. They had an impossible task. With the exception of King's Mountain, after Concord, Bunker Hill, and the siege of Boston, the British Army learned very quickly how to deal with those farmers and riflemen, and they displayed their acumen when they drove Washington off of Long Island and out of New York in a matter of a few months. I know many folks focus on King's Mountain as an example of the power of the riflemen and it is. However, possibly the single most important service provided by riflemen appears to be little known and rarely discussed. That was Edward Hand's rifle company and supporting troops delaying Cornwallis from reaching Trenton until night fall during the second battle of Trenton in January 1777. If they had failed, Cornwallis might have smashed the American Army and the war might of ended then and there. Hand's men did what riflemen did best, act as light infantry and harass the British column forcing them to deploy and slowing them down to a crawl but also staying away from direct contact so they avoided being bayonetted. Militia and riflemen were important assets when used well, but they were not the war winning capability elevated by some of our myths.

dave

 

[toot]

Precisely......

View attachment 75535

he lives, he lives!!!

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Hi,
Great quote Eterry!!

GAHUNTER50,
Murphy's story may be true. It is just not reliably documented and there are some bits of evidence that raise doubts. The problem is that it has been presented to all of us as established fact rather than as a story. It is like the myth of the importance of riflemen and militia during the Rev War. It wasn't hastily assembled farmers and backwoods riflemen that won the war. It was Washington and Greene keeping the army together, trained American soldiers fighting in the traditional manner, with the help of the French and the exhaustion of British support for the war that won it. The British high command in America was not incompetent in the least. They had an impossible task. With the exception of King's Mountain, after Concord, Bunker Hill, and the siege of Boston, the British Army learned very quickly how to deal with those farmers and riflemen, and they displayed their acumen when they drove Washington off of Long Island and out of New York in a matter of a few months. I know many folks focus on King's Mountain as an example of the power of the riflemen and it is. However, possibly the single most important service provided by riflemen appears to be little known and rarely discussed. That was Edward Hand's rifle company and supporting troops delaying Cornwallis from reaching Trenton until night fall during the second battle of Trenton in January 1777. If they had failed, Cornwallis might have smashed the American Army and the war might of ended then and there. Hand's men did what riflemen did best, act as light infantry and harass the British column forcing them to deploy and slowing them down to a crawl but also staying away from direct contact so they avoided being bayonetted. Militia and riflemen were important assets when used well, but they were not the war winning capability elevated by some of our myths.

dave

While I have great respect for the brave soldiers who helped create this country and then preserve it 100 years later, I also find the continued use of Napoleonic tactics and close quarter formation strategies in the age of artillery rather remarkable. Not wishing to shift the thread timeline, however Gen. Pickett lost 1/2 of his 12,000 man force at Gettysburg. What were they thinking I wonder...

 

[dave_person]

Hi Tom,
That is a great question and one I hear a lot. The short answer is , to be on offense and take a position, rather than defending behind walls, they had no choice even in the face of artillery, later rifled muskets, and even later, machine guns. There are two key elements that must be in place to win a battle, you need to mass firepower where and when it is needed, and you need to communicate with all your troops to coordinate them. With single shot weapons, rifled or not, the firepower of an individual soldier was very little. To mass firepower you had to mass men. Moreover, in an age without radios, controlling those men could not be done if they were dispersed into squads or small units. You had drums, bugles, and flags, all of which do not have much range. So you massed your men for firepower and control. Napoleonic tactics do not necessarily imply long lines of opposing troops. Napoleon would focus artillery at one point in the enemy's line and then ram a column of soldiers into it hoping to break it open and destroy the communication and cohesion of the enemy. The front of the column presented fewer soldiers and while the front ranks suffered badly, the following ranks survived until the enemy was reached. It worked many times but not very well against the British because they didn't run and were trained to fire very fast. Plus they learned how to attack the flanks of columns where they were vulnerable. The columns often withered and ran away.

dave

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Great reply. Guess I would have preferred to participate in guerilla tactics.

 

[GAHUNTER60]

The "incompetence" General Bergoyne (and Shaw) was referring to was the fact that the battle plan called for Bergoyne to move his army from Quebec south towards Albany, and General William Howe was to move his Army from New York, north along the Hudson, crushing the rebels in a pincer, and thus shortening, or even ending the rebellion.

Unfortunately for the British, Howe chose to ignore the plan and move his Army against Washington's retreating forces, and capture the rebel capital of Philadelphia. According to accounts I've read, this would afford him (Howe) much more glory and favor from the King, which is what it was all about for these aristocratic Generals. Bergoyne didn't find out about Howe's betrayal until it was too late, thus setting up conditions for Murphy's miraculous shot.

Had Howe done what he was supposed to do, the pincer would have destroyed rebel General Horatio Gates rebel army, and created a unified force that would have eventually overwhelmed Washington's fragile army. It would also have dissuaded France from entering the war, as it did after the Saratoga victory.

But Howe did what he did; Bergoyne did what he did; and Murphy did what he did (or didn't do)! The rest, Ladies and Gentlemen, is History!

 

[dave_person]

Hi GAHUNTER,
Let me suggest a book titled "The Men Who Lost America" by Andrew O'Shaughnessy. It is a very comprehensive study of British political and military leadership during our Revolution. The author is a professor of history at the University of Virginia. It is a very good read. William Howe knew that Lord Germain, who ran the war from England, expected him to join forces with Burgoyne near Albany. Remember, however, orders from England took months to arrive so the commanders were always expected to operate quite a bit on their own initiative. Howe did not believe Burgoyne needed his help and in that he vastly underestimated the turn out of American troops and militia from New York and New England to defend the northern Hudson River. It was a major mistake on his part. Nonetheless, William Howe was not the only Howe fighting in America. His older brother, Admiral Richard Howe, was a brilliant and energetic naval officer in command of a powerful fleet. The brothers used the combination of navy and army to humiliate the American army in New York. William Howe wanted to do that again but the fleet could not help him much up the Hudson as far as Albany. It could in taking Philadelphia. Of course to many European and British commanding officers, taking an opponents capital usually ended the war. The mistake Howe made was he thought Philly was a kind of capital but there was no American capital. Congress could run away to many different places. In the process, Howe landed his army at Head of Elk, MD, and proceeded to engage Washington's army at Brandywine. In this campaign, Patrick Ferguson and his rifle unit armed with the Ferguson breechloader, as well as Hessian jaegers armed with German rifles, and British light infantry armed with pattern 1776 muzzleloading rifles beat up American rifle and light units pretty badly. Howe went on to out flank Washington, George never figured out how to protect his flanks, and beat the American troops. He then occupied Philadelphia. Howe's decision to take Philly was not incompetence. It was miscalculation, something always hanging on the shoulders of every competent commander in war in the face of incomplete information. He was not the only one. After Brandywine came the battle of Germantown. In that battle, Washington had a good chance to really punish the British but he blew it listening to Henry Knox, who was a great artillery commander but still a bit of a book taught amateur. The British 40th regiment of foot occupied the sturdy Chew house and would not surrender. On the brink of success, Knox advised Washington to take the house before advancing saying it was not good strategy to leave an enemy strong point in the rear. The time wasted taking the house caused Washington to lose the battle. Was Washington incompetent or did he just make a bad decision based on flawed information. So be careful calling British generals incompetent.

dave