August West said:
Dan Phariss said:
The shot guns costs more to shoot and there is nothing it will do the rifle will not unless shooting flying birds. Given the way the shotguns of the 18th century were wadded, with tow, means they were less effective than those MLs in use today with cut pasteboard wads.
In any case shooting an ounce of shot at an animal that 1/3 or 1/10 ounce of lead will kill makes no financial sense. This has been true since colonial times and one of the reasons natives were encouraged to use smoothbores. THEY USED MORE LEAD AND POWDER. The reduced powder and lead used by the rifle was specifically pointed out in the the 1760s. It was also more effective in war in terms of the native and the frontiersman who did not conduct war using linear tactics.
By the 1740s a significnt number of natives were using rifles by the 1760s this was a major concern among traders and the indian agents. This is detailed in DeWitt Bailey's "British Military Flintlock Rifles".
If you live along the great lakes or some other region with large numbers of water fowl the shotgun has some appeal. But this does not apply to a great many Americans living in the interior in Colonial times.
Muskets were dirt cheap but were so inaccurate and used so much ammo (1 1/8 ounce or more per shot and the powder to drive it) that for other than European style warfare it was just to expensive to use.
If a rifle using 40 to the pound will do the same thing the 12 to the pound musket who wants the musket?
Smooth rifles, IMO, are greatly over represented in the surviving colonial guns since when the bores became too large from repeated freshings to make a useful rifle for the current usage they were bored for shot or simply never recut to restore them to accuracy. I am told that many supposed smooth rifles have vestiges of rifling.
In the cities in the east the only use many had for a gun was militia duty. On the frontier where having a useful weapon was a necessity rifles were far more common.
YOUR choice is yours of course but a 50 caliber rifle is a near perfect deer rifle in the east and the 45 is very useful. Either could be used for small game. But if the shots for deer are under 50 yards a 40 would work if legal. Shot placement is the key.
War in the forest?
Fast reloading with the enemy 50 yards away or less in the forest is a pipe dream. 100 yards might give you time to get loaded without a patch or with a SB. But the rifle in good hands in pretty sure of a man to 150 so 100 is not a difficult shot if shot prone or rested on a tree as was common practice by both frontiersman and natives.
At Saratoga the British allied natives and French Canadian scouts were so frightened of Moragan's riflemen they mostly went home. The few that staid would not go into the woods to scout. This by the accounts of British officers serving with Burgoyne who were outraged.
So while its nice to quote the Generals scoffing at the rifle as a weapon of war one must consider their needs and point of view. They needed, or thought they did, line infantry with bayonet equipped muskets. But several key battles in the Revolution were won or made more favorable for the US with rifles.
Kings Mountain was a major blow to the British in the south by their own account. Before King's Mountain the south was thought to be theirs. After King's Mountain it was ours. They could no longer recruit loyalists.
I suggest reading "The Frontier Rifleman" by LaCrosse and Huddleston's "Colonial Riflemen in The American Revolution" along with Bailey's book mentioned above.
Dan
Good post however there is one huge fact that you left out, start shooting elk or buffalo with your small caliber rifles. If you are talking about only owning one gun and it has to do everything, the smoothbore starts making a bit more sense, even though it is not as economical. I have done quite a bit of squirrel hunting with my 50 and if I don't hit them in the head there is not much left, even with reduced loads, you can buy a lot of powder and shot for the price of a second rifle. Chris
They used to bark squirrels with the rifle.
I would also point out that there is little left of a squirrel shot in the body with a 32. I have hunted them with 32-36-40 calibers and all will generally remove the head. So the "50 is destructive on squirrels" argument is not valid. You have to bark them or use head shots regardless.
Most rifles would have been in the 44-50 caliber range
IMO. This is hard to refute when people like Col. Hanger states he never saw a rifle over 36 to the pound though he had examined "many hundreds". Were some larger, sure. But typical was
“probably” around 48.
Surviving rifles in England from the Rev-War period, where they saw no or little use being brought home as trophies are often under 50 caliber. See the "Thomas Rifle" #121 in RCA, 47 caliber. Its a SC rifle that was captured and carried back to England.
Number 108 is in England as well its 45.
#96 is in England in very nice condition and is 42 caliber.
There is a Peter Resor rifle in “Steel Canvas” its .42 and predates the Revolution.
Then we have John Joseph Henry in his description of the rifle he bought to replace one lost in a river crossing enroute to Quebec in 1775. It was 45 to the pound (.48 ball) and from his words we get the idea that its BIGGER than the rifle he lost. Its also "short". He thought it was extremely effective and useful.
This can be found in his journal or in Huddleston's book.
So we have quite a number of rifles or descriptions that point out that the bores were in the 44 to 50 caliber range and Hanger telling us he never saw one over about 52 caliber.
There are larger bored rifles that have returned from Europe. The Schriet rifle is 58 IIRC but we have no idea when it was taken to Europe.
Surviving rifles in America were often heavily used till the Civil War era. So a rifle that started as a 44 could easily be a 54 or larger or bored smooth by the time it was retired. Freshing was a common thing for rifles of the time.
Boring rifle muskets for shot was common in the post Civil War period
At the ranges one can reliably kill big game with a smoothbore its possible to HEAD shoot deer and elk or buffalo (from the side at least forehead on a buffalo is tough) with a smaller caliber rifle or even shoot them in the chest with a 44 and up. I have a friend who shot a cow elk in the forehead with a 50 caliber pistol with a 6" barrel and the ball passed through the head completely and IIRC broke the neck as well.
I don't think the buffalo was a major factor, they were susceptible to domestic cattle diseases in the west and I suspect this was true in the east as well. So they were probably not a factor in caliber selection and even then a 48-50 would work if used right.
And finally if powerhouses like the standard 22 RF short will kill deer with a chest shot I doubt the 44-45 caliber rifle is tremendously inadequate for elk. My grandfather killed a WT buck in his mothers garden when he was a kid with a 22 short. This would have likely been circa 1900
Would a 45 be my first choice for elk TODAY? No.
But 1760-1780 is not today. The attitudes and hunting techniques were different.
The ball size only need be adequate. There was a reason why the hunters used lung shots. A 62 should do well with shoulder shots on an elk. But with smaller bores, even the 54, the heavy bones should be avoided. So they used lung shots.
Parkman describes the shooting of 2 buffalo at 175 yards with the plains rifles of the mid-1840's. Stating that the lungs were the true mark in shooting buffalo. They ran off but died within 1/2 mile. The fact they did not die on the spot was of no concern. Assuming 54 caliber rifles, being very typical of the time, we can further assume the ball size was adequate for animals this size at this range. A far tougher critter than elk or even Black Bear. People I trust tell me a 54 is death on moose with a RB.
Why did the larger bores become popular out here? THE RANGES ARE FAR GREATER for one thing.
I killed a doe about 300 yards in front of the camera location with a FL and a buck on the hills in the distance. There were others but some were with 45-70 etc.
Finally if the SB makes more sense why were there so many rifles on the frontier where the gun was used to feed the family to a greater extent? The Rev-war rifle companies came from PA, VA, MD and often from the frontier. RIFLE companies. So we can infer the rifle was adequate for use on the frontier. We already have several period discussions of bore size and while there were surely variations both larger and smaller I suspect the 50 to 40 to the pound was a useful caliber based on the history and personal experience. For example I have recreated the 300 yard shot that is credited with killing Frasier at Saratoga with 50 caliber flintlock. So I know it could have been done with a rifle of this bore size, a 54 or 58 or 62 was not needed to shoot with reasonable accuracy at this distance.
This from pg 76 of Bailey.
The letter quoted is from 30 Nov 1756 concerning the Upper Creeks.
"...Indians are daily getting in to the Method of using Riffle Guns instead of Traders which they purchase where ever they can at monstrous Price, as they can kill point Blank at two hundred Yards distance. ...As the people who sell them to the Indians are generally very poor, their gun being the Greatest part of their Estate, a Fine would be of little or no Effect..."
He was attempting to find a way to discourage the selling of rifles to the natives. We also learn that the poor on the frontier were rifle armed. Why would this be if the smoothbore was the best choice for the poor on the frontier. We can then assume the the poor pioneer than either bought a new rifle and used the excess to improve his lot or bought 2 and sold one to the natives and used this money to make his lot in life better ?????
In any event we see a repeating statement that the natives would pay very high prices for rifles.
Before thinking the smoothbore was the best answer to every question you must ask why the frontier was the realm of the rifle. Why would the natives pay a "monstrous price" for one?
Bailey's book is very informative and for people interested in the rifle in America its required reading just for the chapters on Loyalist Riflemen and the Indian rifles if nothing else.
But current wisdom lauds the smoothbore and there is evidence to support this as well, a smooth rifle is better than a musket but its not a rifle and the only advantage it has is in the fact the barrel costs less to make.
The natives on the upper Missouri would not carry a smoothbore of this weight since it was much heavier, cost more and was in reality no more effective than a cheaper and lighter trade gun.
BUT if someone wants a smooth rifle or fowler or musket its THEIR decision. But it needs to be based on some information.
The question was asked and I gave MY opinion based on my 45+ years of shooting MLs and research.
Dan
