the winner, by a nose

[Artificer]

In the incident with Col. Hangar (? ), it is likely the American shooter was aiming at the group of three mounted men, hoping to get lucky by hitting a man or a horse, and he did. And it's a shot I would probably have taken , knowing that even if I missed, it might interrupt whatever the mounted men were up to and cause them to retreat. The reason we have an account of it is because there was a hit ( on a horse ). We rarely hear about the misses, for obvious reasons. It is very possible Hangar was singled out and fired at several times that day by various rifle and musket shooters , to no effect .

I believe you make a great point about the Rifleman shooting to disrupt the enemy intentions, no matter that Hanger and Tarleton were beyond effective range for the rifle. That is a point that is often overlooked.

It was well worth a shot or a few shots to try to drive enemy Cavalry away before they could get the most and best reconnaissance information on the Americans. This is still true whether or not the American Riflemen realized there were two British Officers in the group at 400 yards distance.

Three soldiers on horseback and clustered so close together (from the Rifleman's perspective), while no doubt the British soldiers were not moving and standing still, was a very large target to shoot at for that range. Indeed, a much larger target than a single man standing still and upright at that distance.

I also concur the fact that the shot actually hit one horse was the reason Hanger recorded the incident for posterity, because it was so highly unusual and most likely far beyond the distance Riflemen normally shot at the British.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Some accounts of the Battle of Cowpens mention that American "Marksmen" were out in front of the American Militia and did some damage before they were forced back into the Militia lines by the advancing British. These accounts are vague at best and we don't know how many of them were forward of the first American Militia line and how far forward they may have been from the first American Militia line.

From a psychological perspective, it would have a VERY good thing for the first line of American Militia to have seen some of the advancing enemy taken out as the British advanced towards the Americans. It would have raised the morale of the American Militia and encouraged them to shoot when it was their turn to shoot just a few rounds. However, it would also not have been a good thing for the resolve of the first American Militia line to see large numbers of "Marksmen" or Riflemen falling back a rather far distance to get to the first American Militia line. That would have given the Militia more time for the Militia think more about retreating as well.

So I personally think the "Marksmen" or Riflemen were just a little bit forward (as in only a few yards forward) of the first American Militia line and after they got off as many shots as they could, would have been called to stand up and come back a short distance to blend in with the first American Militia line. Then the American Militia would have taken inspiration and more resolve from the fact the Marksmen who they had already seen knock of some advancing British, were in line with them to knock off more advancing British while the American Militia were to fire their two or three shots before they were to retire.

Further, the fact that Morgan told his subordinate Militia Commanders they would only be expected to hold for at most three shots before retiring in good order was brilliant. Not only that, but he went around the camp the night before the battle and told groups of soldiers the same thing. This not only showed great concern for the men under Morgan's command, but it also directly involved them "in the trick or scheme" that Morgan had planned for the British. So it appealed to the American Militia on many levels.

In modern times we know to give as much information as we can to our troops ahead of time about the overall offensive action while giving as many specific details as we can to our smallest units for their part in the offensive action. The more the troops know, the less their imaginations will negatively affect them and the more confidence they have ahead of time.

I’m sure the American Militia sorely appreciated the fact that Morgan was not going to ask them to do more than they could reasonably do against some of the finest Regular Infantry in the world. It is a great morale booster to know your Commander is not going to throw away your life and give you a realistic fighting chance to not only survive the battle, but win it. It was also a great morale booster to know they were to be part of a grand trick or scheme the British would not be familiar with. The chance of “putting something over” on the British for a change had to have been a great encouragement. They could visualize how well that would work, as they fell back the next day, so they went into battle with much more confidence than usual.

Gus

 

[Turtle Creek]

Gents,
Any record of riflemen purposely shooting without a patch at close quarters?
I accidentally let a ball slip by a spit patch so homed it at took my time aiming...
Hit the 9 ring at 50 yards on a 25 meter pistol target.
Damned easy load too....just seems to make sense at close quarters and the heat of battle.

 

[Artificer]

I had a couple of quotes on that until my old computer crashed in October. Yes, they did do it, but almost exclusively in war time or in defensive sieges when attacked by Native Americans. They also sometimes loaded directly from the horn when doing that in time of war. Of course, these techniques are NOT recommended today for safety reasons.

In "Colonial Riflemen" by Huddleston, he mentions Riflemen carried bare balls in the pocket at the base of their fingers between 1. The pinky finger and ring finger 2, The ring finger and middle finger and 3. The middle finger and pointing finger. Thus three bare balls in the non shooting hand for faster reloads in Urgent or Emergency Situations and again mostly in War Time. However, I do not know the source for that as I have never run across it anywhere else.

Happy Birthday, USA !!!!
Gus

 

[Turtle Creek]

Makes common sense to me, you don't need a patched ball at close range, especially with a fowled bore.
Seems to me, with lands grooves, you'd have an easier load than the smoothbores would.
Accuracy capability diminishes with a target rich environment at close quarters.

 

[Artificer]

Since almost no original 18th century bullet molds accompany their original 18th century rifles they were used with, we don't know how close they were to the bore size on average. Still, I think it is a good guess the balls were closer to bore size than the balls in the paper wrapped cartridges for muskets.

Powder fouling will go into the grooves of a rifle, but it will also be on the lands of a rifle. Not sure how long it would take the grooves to fill with powder fouling when firing a bare ball.

So while it may have been a bit easier to load a bare ball into a rifle than a paper wrapped much smaller sized ball in a Musket, I really have no idea how much easier it may have been to load a bare ball in a rifle.
Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

I have to wonder if Mr. Mills was shooting elongated bullets in his .36 cal. rifle. I don't know when bullets as opposed to balls came into common use, but it may have been around this time . It would have been normal for people to continue for a while to refer to the size of the bore in the familiar " balls to the pound " that everyone understood , even though with elongated bullets, that reference was no longer accurate. None of this takes away from the fact that, if the story is true, Mr. Mills was doing some excellent shooting.

 

[nchawkeye]

I have to wonder if Mr. Mills was shooting elongated bullets in his .36 cal. rifle. I don't know when bullets as opposed to balls came into common use, but it may have been around this time . It would have been normal for people to continue for a while to refer to the size of the bore in the familiar " balls to the pound " that everyone understood , even though with elongated bullets, that reference was no longer accurate. None of this takes away from the fact that, if the story is true, Mr. Mills was doing some excellent shooting.

Bullets were developed in the 1850s, used extensively during the Civil war in the 1860s...