What rifle for war of 1812

[Clark Badgett]

I respectfully disagree. This was fifty years after the revolution, while a man may have dads or grands rifle the population more then tripled
Most men that were of fighting age that owned a rifle would have had a rifle built in the last decade or two. There just wasn’t enough old rifles to supply new shooters. A colonial/revolutionary rifle would have been rare, not because they were unserviceable but just lack of numbers

Might want to check your math on that. 1812-1776 is a bit short of 50 years.

 

[Nor'Easter]

1782 to 1812 = 30 years

 

[FlinterNick]

As of 1794 the US still had in stores, approximately 10,000 unissued French muskets that had been set aside for emergency. That is also the year the Feds started contracting for all the serviceable muskets parts taken from used up muskets to be rebuilt into muskets as close to the 1766 Charleville pattern as possible. There were subsequent contracts let in the years following for new muskets made to the same pattern that were intended for the militia of the various states. There were also various other European muskets purchased around the time frame including at least 9500 English commercial Tower muskets of the 1793 pattern.

I think the US may have also purchased some of those very early 1777 pattern muskets, the ones they copied to make the 1816.

 

[oreclan]

Yes, the Kibler Colonial would be very appropriate for that time period

I agree and having been a reenactor at the Battle of New Orleans in 2015 , rifles were used by the militia units , although I personally used a Miroku French 1776 musket I modified to a 1728 model with an iron ramrod . The 1728 is my "go to" reenacting firearm!
The Colonial is an excellent and appropriate firearm for a War of 1812 militiaman.
I own two Colonials one still a kit , which I want to furnish with a brass patch box, if I can make the catch release that I want.
I use my .54 cal. Colonial for SAR memorial ceremonies as a frontier militiaman; and my 1728, if dressed as a Continental soldier.

 

[oreclan]

Thanks for all the conversation. Here’s another question how would this gun be converted or the Fowler kit to more appropriately resemble a militia Fowler or rifle ?

The Kibler Fowler kit would work well; however a .58 smooth bore barrel can be ordered for your Colonial kit. This would be easier to clean after reenacting .
You could also order a rifled replacement barrel for other uses such as target shooting or hunting.

 

[Clark Badgett]

I agree and having been a reenactor at the Battle of New Orleans in 2015 , rifles were used by the militia units , although I personally used a Miroku French 1776 musket I modified to a 1728 model with an iron ramrod . The 1728 is my "go to" reenacting firearm!
The Colonial is an excellent and appropriate firearm for a War of 1812 militiaman.
I own two Colonials one still a kit , which I want to furnish with a brass patch box, if I can make the catch release that I want.
I use my .54 cal. Colonial for SAR memorial ceremonies as a frontier militiaman; and my 1728, if dressed as a Continental soldier.

The average musket had a calculated service life of up to 12 years. Most of the French 1728s that were on this continent were captured/surrendered by 1763, and those were fairly heavily used due to the French government’s reluctance to resupply the French troops that were here. Those muskets that were serviceable went into the armories of various colonies, and those that weren’t serviceable were sold off to gun makers, namely those in the New England area that often enough restocked them into fowlers. It’s very doubtful that very many made it through the Revolution intact and would have been sold as surplus parts prior to 1794. By 1812, an intact 1728 would have been a rare sight.

 

[FlinterNick]

The average musket had a calculated service life of up to 12 years. Most of the French 1728s that were on this continent were captured/surrendered by 1763, and those were fairly heavily used due to the French government’s reluctance to resupply the French troops that were here. Those muskets that were serviceable went into the armories of various colonies, and those that weren’t serviceable were sold off to gun makers, namely those in the New England area that often enough restocked them into fowlers. It’s very doubtful that very many made it through the Revolution intact and would have been sold as surplus parts prior to 1794. The 1812, an intact 1728 would have been a rare sight.

Agree Clark, just about the only French muskets serviceable through the 1812 era were 1766s - 1774s and I doubt many were actually used in combat.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Agree Clark, just about the only French muskets serviceable through the 1812 era were 1766s - 1774s and I doubt many were actually used in combat.

That would depend on what they did with the 10,000 stands that President Washington set in reserves. If they issued those once the 1795 production caught up, then you are probably correct. Frontier usage of muskets degraded them fast.

 

[Packrat]

I would think that the 1803 Harpers Ferry, as the Corps of Discovery had, would be to short for the war of 1812

 

[FlinterNick]

I would think that the 1803 Harpers Ferry, as the Corps of Discovery had, would be to short for the war of 1812

The 1803 rifle was the primary rifle of the American Military Riflemen in the war of 1812, they used it exclusively in the beginning of the attack on York. It was used in nearly every battle of the War, including naval battles. They were made in great numbers at Harpers Ferry and Springfield throughout the War, then even attempted an upgrade with the 1814 common rifle that was issued mostly in the south.

 

[loflyr55]

Chances are that IF rifles were issued to the militia by the Federal Government during the War of 1812, they would have M1792/94 contract rifles (with various small differences in them due to them still basically a hand made rifle even when they were made by larger gunsmith shops.)

However, a sprinkling or small number of earlier rifles would have been found, depending on the location of the militia units. One would expect more in areas where the rifle was long used locally and far less to none where the rifle was not in popular use in recent decades.

Gus

The arsenal in Pennsylvania (schuykill?) contained 1793 contract rifles which may have been issued to units in the Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey units. Dickert was one of the markers that supplied rifles under that contract and if you look at his style you may get pretty close to an accurate pattern.

 

[tenngun]

Might want to check your math on that. 1812-1776 is a bit short of 50 years.

It is a bit short, honestly I was thinking a man’s age, old enough to to be a soldier in the revolution would have been about fifty in the war of 1812
Was looking at my own experience during the bicentennial I was nineteen in 1976 and fiftyfive in 2012
My bad

 

[TNGhost]

As I said old rifles were in use, but just think on the numbers.
In 1776 our population was about two million, approximately six hundred thousand adult men, were ten percent of the population rifle owners? Sixty thousand? I doubt it was that high.
by 1790 the population had doubled, and doubled again by 1810, the eve of the war. There was about eight to nine million about three million adult males. If ten percent were rifleman that’s three hundred thousand.
Assuming our high number of sixty thousand rifles in 1776 that’s one in five at the most, if they were all well cared for and all crossed the fall line

Actual numbers always put a different perspective on the perceived past.

 

[TNGhost]

Might want to check your math on that. 1812-1776 is a bit short of 50 years.

1776 is an arbitrary number when it comes to the war era. The war actually started well before that with the actually shooting starting circa 1774, and it ended well after 76.

 

[Clark Badgett]

As I said old rifles were in use, but just think on the numbers.
In 1776 our population was about two million, approximately six hundred thousand adult men, were ten percent of the population rifle owners? Sixty thousand? I doubt it was that high.
by 1790 the population had doubled, and doubled again by 1810, the eve of the war. There was about eight to nine million about three million adult males. If ten percent were rifleman that’s three hundred thousand.
Assuming our high number of sixty thousand rifles in 1776 that’s one in five at the most, if they were all well cared for and all crossed the fall line

Be careful with that ‘assuming’ word. It will get you in trouble every time. Between 1760 and 1830ish, rifles became increasingly popular, and the number of makers producing them grew to the point which lead to the gaudily decorated late flintlock period pieces.
Far too many people these days assume that heirloom sentimentality common enough these days was just as prevalent then. That was not the case. They were far more pragmatic and frugal in those days. The percentage of original rifles that were converted to percussion is not inconsequential. Serviceable firearms were not discarded just because they were not the newest style, and even once outdated they stayed in usage until no longer able to function. Even cartridge guns took about 30 years to finally become more common than percussion guns.

So in summation, if you are going to reenact, reenact the normal, which would be a standard musket toting infantryman, and not the much less encountered rifleman. Leave that for the specific instance where that was the normal.

 

[Clark Badgett]

1776 is an arbitrary number when it comes to the war era. The war actually started well before that with the actually shooting starting circa 1774, and it ended well after 76.

Stop trying to split hairs. The official start of the war was April 19, 1775. And yes, I know the war ended well after 1776, which is even less than the 50 years claim.

 

[FlinterNick]

Rather than throw gun powder on the fire in this thread, I will say that Kibler Colonial Long Rifle is fine for war of 1812 militia reenactment.

 

[FlinterNick]

Stop trying to split hairs. The official start of the war was April 19, 1775. And yes, I know the war ended well after 1776, which is even less than the 50 years claim.

Some people just can’t let go of an argument.

If someone had a an 1803 rifle with a manufacture date of 1817, would that make it obsolete for the war of 1812 reenactment ? My answer would be no, it’s fine because the war is over lol

 

[springfield art]

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.

His character's swinging the rifle atop the ramparts of the Alamo would result in it's breaking apart in short order.

 

[ConnorKenway1781]

It all depends on your side. If you are a regular American, try the suggested above. Possibly all flintlock. For the British side, Regular= Brown Bess, Officer: An early form of cap lock. Mind you, the percussion lock was patented in 1807, so a few officers might have had some early form of cap lock.