What rifle for war of 1812

[Flintlock Fellow]

As previously mentioned, during the War of 1812, there were a number of documented instances in which militia units received federal arms that were in poor condition or insufficient in number. Here are some specific examples:

1. Kentucky Militia under General John Adair (1814):

• Context: In late 1814, General Andrew Jackson requested reinforcements from Kentucky for the defense of New Orleans.

• Issue: General John Adair quickly raised three regiments; however, the federal government did not provide them with weapons or means of transportation. Many of Adair’s men were unarmed upon arrival.

• Source: Wikipedia article on John Adair.

2. 2nd Regiment of Light Dragoons (1812):

• Context: The 2nd Regiment of Light Dragoons was organized in early 1812.

• Issue: The regiment faced significant delays in receiving equipment. By September 1812, only half the regiment was mounted, and many of the horses were unfit for service. The regiment was not fully equipped until December 1812, nearly a year after its organization.

• Source: Wikipedia article on the 2nd Regiment of Light Dragoons.

3. General Supply Issues in the U.S. Army (War of 1812):

• Context: The American supply system during the War of 1812 was notably inefficient.

• Issue: The breakdown in the supply system prevented soldiers from receiving much-needed provisions, including arms, which hindered field armies’ effectiveness and prolonged the war.

• Source: Thesis on “The United States Army in the First Year of the War of 1812.”

 

[Rock Home Isle]

I’m still of the opinion that a Kibler Colonial Rifle would suffice for an 1812 Reinactment. Seriously, I truly feel that way

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

I’m still of the opinion that a Kibler Colonial Rifle would suffice for an 1812 Reinactment. Seriously, I truly feel that way

‘Nuff said!

 

[SPQR70AD]

Yet, Mr. Crockett used that “delicate” long rifle in numerous engagements, to include Tallushatchee and The Alamo.

I must respectfully disagree with your claim about long rifles like Crockett’s being ‘too delicate for military use.’ While it’s true that military muskets were preferred for their durability and faster reloading under combat conditions, the perceived ‘delicacy’ of long rifles stems more from their design priorities than any inherent fragility.

You see, military muskets like the Brown Bess or Charleville were designed for close-range, massed-volley fire. Their shorter barrels, robust stocks, and steel ramrods were ideal for the rigors of battlefield conditions, including hand-to-hand combat with bayonets. However, long rifles were designed for precision, often at ranges of 200 yards or more—far beyond the effective range of most muskets. This difference in function doesn’t make long rifles ‘delicate’; it simply means they were optimized for different roles.

Long rifles, such as the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles, were used effectively in the American Revolution. Daniel Morgan’s Rifle Corps, for instance, famously utilized long rifles to devastating effect, particularly in skirmishes and sniper roles, where precision was key. These rifles were instrumental in battles like Saratoga, helping turn the tide of the war. Their accuracy and range were unmatched, even though they were slower to reload than muskets.

Long rifles were constructed to last, often with robust hardwood stocks and pinned barrels. While they lacked the metal bands of muskets, pins provided sufficient stability for non-military use and even for irregular warfare. The notion that they were ‘too delicate’ is not supported by their widespread use on the frontier, where ruggedness and reliability were essential for survival.

The statement about bayonets ‘killing more soldiers than lead balls’ is partially true but requires context. According to military historians, bayonets were often used more for intimidation than killing, as melee combat was less common than musket fire exchanges. However, when bayonet charges occurred, they could be decisive, particularly in breaking enemy lines. This was a key advantage of muskets over rifles, as rifles typically lacked bayonet lugs.

In conclusion, the ‘delicacy’ of long rifles is a misconception when viewed outside the context of 18th-century battlefield tactics. They were not suitable for line infantry roles but excelled in the hands of sharpshooters and guerrilla fighters. Their durability and precision made them invaluable in many non-conventional military scenarios, even if they were not the weapon of choice for standing armies.

they came out with the Hawken a stronger rifle being the long rifles that were brought out west werent heavy duty enough. sniping doesnt prove durability of a rifle. yes bayonets broke ranks and the intimidation was caused by not wanting to get skewered. I do not have much faith in pinned barrels where the Hawken was an improved long rifle made shorter with stock keys

 

[SPQR70AD]

Go with a Harpers Ferry 1803 Common rifle. They were made for the U.S. Government, but the National Armories would sell standard, or even customised arms to Officers, and U.S Civilians ( Militia ). They look nice too.

now that is a heavy duty well built rifle

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

I don’t know how we got off on this tangent, but here it goes…

Calling long rifles “fragile” is a pretty big misconception. Let me break this down:

1. Durability of Pinned Barrels vs. Stock Keys

• Pinned barrels are not inherently weaker than stock keys. In fact, pinned barrels were standard on countless rifles for over a century and were well-proven for both civilian and military use. The pins spread the stresses of firing along the entire length of the barrel channel, which can make them very durable in normal use.

• Stock keys (like on Hawkens) were a different approach, designed primarily for ease of maintenance. They allowed for quicker disassembly in the field but were not necessarily “stronger.” Both systems, when executed well, are plenty robust.

2. The Myth of Fragility in Long Rifles

• Long rifles were designed for practicality and durability in tough conditions. They were used by pioneers, hunters, and soldiers who relied on them daily, often under harsh circumstances.

• These rifles endured decades of frontier use, including exposure to weather, rough handling, and regular maintenance in isolated areas. If they were “fragile,” they would never have gained the reputation they did. I can’t help but wonder how figures like Boone or Crockett (and the list goes on and on) would have responded to these assertions that their rifles were frail and flimsy.

3. Hawkens vs. Long Rifles

• The Hawken rifle wasn’t necessarily “stronger”—it was different. Its shorter, heavier barrel and half-stock design made it more suited for rugged horseback travel and larger calibers, which were better for hunting big game like buffalo. But these differences were about adaptation to a specific purpose, not a fix for any supposed weakness in the long rifle.

• Long rifles, with their slender, full-length stocks and smaller calibers, were optimized for precision shooting, ease of carry, and economical use of powder and lead. They weren’t “too fragile”—they were simply specialized tools for a different job.

4. Historical Evidence

• Long rifles saw extensive use during the American Revolution and on the frontier, and they were effective enough to influence military tactics and inspire legends like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett.

• Even as Hawkens gained popularity in the West, long rifles remained in use because they were reliable and familiar to many settlers.

In short, long rifles weren’t fragile—they were highly specialized tools that excelled in their intended roles. The Hawken was an evolution to meet the needs of a different environment, not a “fix” for any inherent weakness. Both designs were strong and well-suited to their respective purposes.

 

[SPQR70AD]

I don’t know how we got off on this tangent, but here it goes…

Calling long rifles “fragile” is a pretty big misconception. Let me break this down:

1. Durability of Pinned Barrels vs. Stock Keys

• Pinned barrels are not inherently weaker than stock keys. In fact, pinned barrels were standard on countless rifles for over a century and were well-proven for both civilian and military use. The pins spread the stresses of firing along the entire length of the barrel channel, which can make them very durable in normal use.

• Stock keys (like on Hawkens) were a different approach, designed primarily for ease of maintenance. They allowed for quicker disassembly in the field but were not necessarily “stronger.” Both systems, when executed well, are plenty robust.

2. The Myth of Fragility in Long Rifles

• Long rifles were designed for practicality and durability in tough conditions. They were used by pioneers, hunters, and soldiers who relied on them daily, often under harsh circumstances.

• These rifles endured decades of frontier use, including exposure to weather, rough handling, and regular maintenance in isolated areas. If they were “fragile,” they would never have gained the reputation they did.

3. Hawkens vs. Long Rifles

• The Hawken rifle wasn’t necessarily “stronger”—it was different. Its shorter, heavier barrel and half-stock design made it more suited for rugged horseback travel and larger calibers, which were better for hunting big game like buffalo. But these differences were about adaptation to a specific purpose, not a fix for any supposed weakness in the long rifle.

• Long rifles, with their slender, full-length stocks and smaller calibers, were optimized for precision shooting, ease of carry, and economical use of powder and lead. They weren’t “too fragile”—they were simply specialized tools for a different job.

4. Historical Evidence

• Long rifles saw extensive use during the American Revolution and on the frontier, and they were effective enough to influence military tactics and inspire legends like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett.

• Even as Hawkens gained popularity in the West, long rifles remained in use because they were reliable and familiar to many settlers.

In short, long rifles weren’t fragile—they were highly specialized tools that excelled in their intended roles. The Hawken was an evolution to meet the needs of a different environment, not a “fix” for any inherent weakness. Both designs were strong and well-suited to their respective purposes.

remember nobody had the money to shoot the long rifles willy nilly where military rifles were shot way more just practicing then in battles. long rifles were mostly used for game so they could eat. if somebody was paying for powder and shot like if you were in an army unit they were shot more. you gotta admit the 1803 Harpers Ferry rifle is one robust rifle. being only one shot what rifle would you feel better with to smash a head in with after empty? a long rifle or the 1803?

 

[BoomStick]

The 1803 would be a fine choice if there was a decent reproduction. I’ve heard nothing but complaints about the Zoli/Euroarms copies. One of our club members kicks some serious hiney with his at our matches, but it’s been extensively modified and tuned by a competent gunsmith.

FWIW The Rifle Shoppe makes an excellent 1803 kit. I have one and it's top quality components and a good shooter.

I don't think the 1803 was made in enough numbers that any would have gone to a militia unit. It was well liked and prompted a new production run of the model in 1814 same gun but a longer barrel.

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

FWIW The Rifle Shoppe makes an excellent 1803 kit. I have one and it's top quality components and a good shooter.

I don't think the 1803 was made in enough numbers that any would have gone to a militia unit. It was well liked and prompted a new production run of the model in 1814 same gun but a longer barrel.

I stand corrected! Thank you. May have to check out that Rifle Shoppe kit…

You’re absolutely right. The1803 was primarily issued to regular U.S. Army rifle regiments, but it is not impossible that militia units had access to them in limited cases. Rifles could have been obtained through surplus, capture, or private purchase.

This is obviously just conjecture, and I have no documentable evidence to back up the claim, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

Isn’t it ultimately a matter of how creative or imaginative someone wants to get with their firearm’s backstory? Take these for example: “I picked up this 1803 Harpers Ferry rifle from an Army deserter for $25,” or, “I found this 1803 in the hands of a fallen soldier slumped against a tree and decided to give it a second life.” Or am I way off base here?

I’ve never been part of the reenactment crowd, so I’m not sure if that sort of thing is frowned upon or encouraged.

In any case, it’s not my intent to beat the topic to death or hijack the thread. I think the OP’s question has been answered— hopefully to his satisfaction.

 

[Sniperdoc]

Of course, you never can be too sure! I don’t mean to be condescending or second-guess the OP, but I’ve had a great number of folks compliment my Philadelphia fowler with, ‘Nice rifle!’ (after being told that it’s a smoothbore/fowling piece). It’s a reminder that folks often confuse or conflate the two.

I've heard people use the term "smoothbore rifle" more than once

 

[northernThaiguy]

Here's a picture a friend sent me of an 1811 Springfield he bought at a show out west this last spring with a typed paper stating who all were the owners of that particular rifle. Good find!

 

[Flintlock Fellow]

I've heard people use the term "smoothbore rifle" more than once

I, too, have heard the term “smooth rifle” on various occasions. I think this is simply a descriptive term given to a smoothbore firearm that features the aesthetic characteristics of a rifle, such as a rifle-style stock, trigger guard, and barrel bands, perhaps even a rear sight. Essentially, it's a smoothbore weapon designed to look like a rifle, you know? At least, that’s my assumption. A bit of a misnomer, if you ask me!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

But most trade rifles of that era, Derringer or Leman, conformed to a later federal style.
Many gunsmith were only active for twenty to thirty years. A 1770s rifle maker was retired while styles changed
Certainly we see the evolution of of the classic ‘Kentucky’ rifle during the federal period that was that dainty style compared to the more robust style of the revolutionary and pre rev rifles

The argument is NOT that rifles didn't evolve. The argument is that with what little exists of physical evidence i.e. existing rifles, it is very difficult to say what was "common" because the existing sample is too small compared to the surviving written inventories. We can say compared to what is common of the surviving examples, but that does not mean that the surviving examples, when built, were similar to the majority of rifles made at the same time i.e. the common rifles.

Dating is also very problematic. For Example ; dating often it is done by "features" such as a bridled or unbridled pan, with the unbridled pan being considered the "older style" thus likely to be found on an older rifle, pre-F&I or certainly pre-AWI. YET on British "contract" rifles for Indian trade, delivered at the end of the AWI c. 1781, one finds unbridled pans on locks made by Grice, and further later in the 19th century some trade rifles are found with unbridled pans.

LD

 

[FlinterNick]

The 1803 would be a fine choice if there was a decent reproduction. I’ve heard nothing but complaints about the Zoli/Euroarms copies. One of our club members kicks some serious hiney with his at our matches, but it’s been extensively modified and tuned by a competent gunsmith.

The federal government and states were offering many types of rifles.

The 1803 pattern as well as many government contract rifles were available, some states even had contracts for their own rifles. The common rifle of 1814 would have been available in limited numbers.

What would have a militia unit been armed with was the OP’s question, is a colonial Kibler ok to use, the answer is yes, a lot of similar flintlock rifles were available.

Now, i do understand that many on this thread are attempting to ‘flesh out’ the finite details as to what kind of flintlock rifles would be most appropriate for 1812 use, based on details that hold little relevance, the general answer though is for the 1812 reinactor, a Kibler. Colonial long rifle does the job just fine.

 

[Nor'Easter]

Gentlemen,
Can either of you point to the date when the style found in the Kibler "Colonial" rifle would have been a "discontinued" style ? Simply because it is a pattern believed to have been in vogue during the AWI, does not mean if one encountered such a rifle in 1812 that it had to be 30+ years old, does it? IF a rifle builder had mastered a certain style, and that style was still being purchased by his customers, WHY would one expect him to change it? The date ranges currently attributed to the long rifles are pretty much opinions. When it comes to the beginning of a style, that tends to be a much better estimate than when a certain style was discontinued.

"OOPS the war is over need to change the rifle style", or "Hey it's 1801, and now the 19th century, so need to change the rifle style" are two sentences likely never uttered by a rifle maker.



I agree.

LD

Agree. It's almost 2025, and there are still alot of brand new 'obsolete' lever-action rifles and single-action revolvers manufactured and sold. 150+ year old technology.
.
My guess is they were not that much different than present gun men.