| Author |
Message |
Stephen Hand
|
 Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 3:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Rifling was understood and used from the 16th century, but it was horrifically fiddly and expensive until the mid 19th century when they made machines to do it. Rifles also fouled a lot more quickly until the advent of the minie ball.
So rifles were extremely rare on the battlefield until a few units were raised in the 18th century (95th rifles being the most famous) and were uncommon for at least another 50 years after that.
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
   |
 |
Shayan G
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I read a book about colonial riflemen in the American Revolution that goes into great detail about the difference rifling made in combat even in the 18th century--it was rare among the common militia (the vast bulk of the American forces), but among units comprised mostly of frontiersman it was--at least this is my understanding--almost a requisite to join. It was the rifling that enabled these frontiersman to become the feared sharpshooters that demoralized the British officers. According to this book, truly skilled riflemen with Kentucky rifles were known to be able to hit a head-sized target (or a real head) 200 or 300 yards away. Many hunters today won't even try to take a deer unless it's within 100, for fear of missing the vitals and unethically wounding it. The feats these frontiersman were capable of with a good rifle is simply astonishing.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shayan G wrote: | | I read a book about colonial riflemen in the American Revolution that goes into great detail about the difference rifling made in combat even in the 18th century--it was rare among the common militia (the vast bulk of the American forces), but among units comprised mostly of frontiersman it was--at least this is my understanding--almost a requisite to join. It was the rifling that enabled these frontiersman to become the feared sharpshooters that demoralized the British officers. According to this book, truly skilled riflemen with Kentucky rifles were known to be able to hit a head-sized target (or a real head) 200 or 300 yards away. Many hunters today won't even try to take a deer unless it's within 100, for fear of missing the vitals and unethically wounding it. The feats these frontiersman were capable of with a good rifle is simply astonishing. |
Lots and lots of practice with the rifle and more than the average once a year modern hunter can manage even with a scope sight.
It also means knowing where one's rifle shoots with fixed sight adjusted to a standard load of powder and shot: One might adjust/regulate the sights to the load but in part it would be finding the load that your rifle " liked " and performed best with.
Variables like varying lots of powder might mean having to re-work up the load periodically otherwise sighting and group size would vary greatly and even more at long ranges over 200 yards.
After all the above shooting skill and visual acuity would make a great deal of difference between a good 100 yard shooter and an elite shooter capable of consistent accuracy over 300 yards.
Even 600 yard shots would be very menacing to individual targets even if the odds of hitting a small target might go down drastically. Against a line of soldiers 600 yard " harassing " fire should have been effective.
( Disclaimer: Mostly going from memory of things read long ago and others with real life experience with long range black powder shooting may confirm or contradict some of the above.   ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stephen,
OK. That sounds about right. I was curious as it had to do for the average rank and file adn that seems to make sense to me. I wonderhow they would clean the barrels of a rifled barrel. Would it be the same as other musket barrels?
Jean,
I think the practice must make a huge difference in the use of such weapons- as it does with most. I can imagine these firearms even more so as they seem to be more fussy about the conditions and usage.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Elnathan Barnett
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Stephen,
OK. That sounds about right. I was curious as it had to do for the average rank and file adn that seems to make sense to me. I wonderhow they would clean the barrels of a rifled barrel. Would it be the same as other musket barrels?
Jean,
I think the practice must make a huge difference in the use of such weapons- as it does with most. I can imagine these firearms even more so as they seem to be more fussy about the conditions and usage.
RPM |
Rifles were cleaned the same way as muskets - water and a bit of tow on the end of a stick. You have to scrub a bit more, I believe. The reason that rifles were relegated to snipers and sharpshooters was the fact that rifle must be loaded with a tight fitting ball. From very early on this was accomplished by taking an undersized ball and wrapping it in a greased patch of cloth or leather which would grip the rifling and impart a spin to the bullet. All this meant that a rifle was much slower to load than a smoothbore. Fowling was a problem for the same reason . Now, smoothbores foul worse than muskets, all other things being equal, because 1) fouling collects in the grooves that would otherwise impede the ball (I think. There is a theory that rifling originated in an effort to give the fouling somewhere to go, but that is suspect in my mind, and I don't know tfor sure hat a rifle shooting a naked ball would foul less than a similar smoothbore), and because 2) the patch wipes the bore somewhat on the way down depending on the lubricant used. However, the need for a tight fitting ball meant that fouling was a problem for rifles using a ball .010-15" undersize rather than a smoothbore using a ball .05" less than bore size. Also, rifles were very rarely fitted for a bayonet, so riflemen were vulnerable at close quarters. Riflemen were a small but significant presence on European battlefield from at least 1750 on, when the Germans started using Jaegers armed with rifles. There are also references to "screw-barrel" guns in the English Civil War, and the Norwegians had rifle-armed ski-troops from 1710 on, I believe.
Rifles are "more fussy" in the sense that a sword is more fussy than a club - you can fire a rifle like a musket, more or less, but it is wasted potential.
Incidently, a musket and a rifle looked very different, especially in the early days. Compare http://raabs.homepage.t-online.de/inhalt.htm (look under Luntenschloss) with http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/displayRepro...=1#content Later on the differences are are more subtle, but still evident.
Edited to add:
A quick note on accuracy- period testimony from the American Revolution indicates that 200 yards was well within effective range, and a very good marksman could probably pull off a headshot (there is a story a full company of frontiersmen all putting their shots into a piece of paper 7" square, while Col. George Hanger remarked that he would be "undoubtedly" hit somewhere in the body were an American rifleman to shoot at him from 200 yards away). 300 yards is probably the upper limit of accuracy before 1850 or so. Tim Murphy is supposed to have shot General Fraser at 300 yards, but only on his third try (admittedly, Simon Fraser was moving around at the time), while Hanger mentions being narrowly missed from 400 yards, but these are probably exceptional. Generally speaking, the firearms of the period could probably shoot as well as the man behind them could see - uncorrected vision and simple notch-and-blade sights were the limiting factors, I believe. At the end of the muzzleloading period conical bullets, a better understanding of the role of twist rates on accuracy, and the advent of telescopic sights pushed the effective range of target rifles (and the wonderful and ingenious Whitworth rifle) up past 500 yards.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elnathan Barnett wrote: | | Randall Moffett wrote: | Stephen,
OK. That sounds about right. I was curious as it had to do for the average rank and file adn that seems to make sense to me. I wonderhow they would clean the barrels of a rifled barrel. Would it be the same as other musket barrels?
Jean,
I think the practice must make a huge difference in the use of such weapons- as it does with most. I can imagine these firearms even more so as they seem to be more fussy about the conditions and usage.
RPM |
Edited to add:
A quick note on accuracy- period testimony from the American Revolution indicates that 200 yards was well within effective range, and a very good marksman could probably pull off a headshot (there is a story a full company of frontiersmen all putting their shots into a piece of paper 7" square, while Col. George Hanger remarked that he would be "undoubtedly" hit somewhere in the body were an American rifleman to shoot at him from 200 yards away). 300 yards is probably the upper limit of accuracy before 1850 or so. Tim Murphy is supposed to have shot General Fraser at 300 yards, but only on his third try (admittedly, Simon Fraser was moving around at the time), while Hanger mentions being narrowly missed from 400 yards, but these are probably exceptional. Generally speaking, the firearms of the period could probably shoot as well as the man behind them could see - uncorrected vision and simple notch-and-blade sights were the limiting factors, I believe. At the end of the muzzleloading period conical bullets, a better understanding of the role of twist rates on accuracy, and the advent of telescopic sights pushed the effective range of target rifles (and the wonderful and ingenious Whitworth rifle) up past 500 yards. |
I think we could make the distinction between accurate snipping where a small target like a head or human torso could be hit consistently by a good marksman and a range were harassing fire by a good marksman would be accurate enough to be worrisome to an area target like a group of soldiers or a larger formation: Like you mentioned the former might be limited to 200 or 300 yards but the second could extend somewhat more like in the 400 to 600 yard range i.e. suppressive fire without the volume of fire in the modern sense of the word. Might be useful if a period rifleman shooting at a distant artillery battery.
Oh, I think the first use of optical sights was in the American civil war and conical bullets would have also had better ballistics/sectional density than ball ammo. Low velocity ammo is much harder to be effective with at long range because the trajectory is very rainbow like so a small error in elevation will mean the bullet falling far short or far beyond the target with only a very small error in evaluating distance and the precision of rear sight, assuming it's an adjustable sight.
In the civil war some rare but effective snipping was done at very long ranges close to a thousand yards using primitive scopes. Very close to modern maximums using rifle caliber weapons.
Although some .50 caliber weapons have been used succesfully for snipping at close or over a mile in recent years .
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Hill
Location: Atlanta Ga Joined: 16 May 2005
Posts: 614
|
| Posted: Sat 17 Nov, 2007 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shayan G wrote: | | hit a head-sized target (or a real head) 200 or 300 yards away. Many hunters today won't even try to take a deer unless it's within 100, for fear of missing the vitals and unethically wounding it. The feats these frontiersman were capable of with a good rifle is simply astonishing. |
Jeff Cooper was writing on this topic, and he was this is a question of acceptable outcomes. Missing an enemy, or hitting in a non-vital way, on the battlefield is purely acceptable, as you owe an enemy nothing, so you might as well take the chance of hitting him, (Assuming there isn't a pressing reason not to shoot of course,) whereas taking a chance at hitting an animal, wounding it badly, and having it get away and suffer a grueling slow death is NOT acceptable. You owe the animal better then that, whereas you do not owe better to an enemy who is trying to kill you.
So skill or no skill, you only shoot when hunting if you are sure of a hit and a GOOD hit, whereas you can shoot at an enemy when you are somewhat less certain.
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
|
|
  |
|
|
David Evans
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 4:00 am Post subject: Cleaning |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Stephen,
OK. That sounds about right. I was curious as it had to do for the average rank and file adn that seems to make sense to me. I wonderhow they would clean the barrels of a rifled barrel. Would it be the same as other musket barrels?
Jean,
I think the practice must make a huge difference in the use of such weapons- as it does with most. I can imagine these firearms even more so as they seem to be more fussy about the conditions and usage.
RPM |
Randell,
The easisest starter is boiling water, just washes out the crud and the water heats the barrel up, which helps prevent rust forming. There is a tool that fits to the scouring stick that can be used to scour really thick crud out, this tool, and I'll try and find a picture, has two prongs that scrape down the barrel, these can be eased into the rifling grooves and gently scraped downwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack W. Englund
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have been reading this thread & I enter in with caution, [color=black]but Perhaps I can add some insight from my perspective.
!. I own & reg. compete with or agaist the following Black Powder/Muzzle loading firearms.( the are all flint lock reproductions using patched round ball (1800-1840)[ or reg. observer their usage.
Use in competition.
I. Musket/smooth bores , no rear sights, standing off hand.----"Brown Besses" (.75 cal.)( various patterns), "Trade Guns",& Fowlers (mostly .62-.75 cal.)
a. Accuracy - ( shot by "average marksmen, there are some who shoot far better (not me)@ 50 yd. 4-6" groups - @100 yd. 8-12" groups. - @200 yds - 12-18"
b. Power - With a target load (75-80 gr.s) & a .62-.75 ball, they will defiantly "MOVE" a 1" thick x 12" steel
gong. ( with a 120.gr. load, my .75 will lay out this target @ 100 yd.)
II. Rifles - Fixed open sights, Patched round ball
NOTE- because of the vast # of styles & cal, I will restrict my examples.
1.Amer. Rev. type ( Penn/Kentucky) NOTE most were under .45 cal. (quite a number were under .40.cal down to .32 cal.)
a. Accuracy - Depends on cal. ( the lighter the ball, normally = less accurate @ longer ranges ( @ "squirrel gun"matches - under .40 cal. & shot from a rest , 2" groups are reg. @ 25 yd.) -- .45s @ off hand @ 100yds 2-3" groups. @200+ their accuracy deteriorates because of wind drop etc. Can & do they hit 300 yds, YES, but it takes "practice ( mainly figuring drop)
b. Power - @ 100 yds ( same size target as above) little if any movement. @ 200 yd., None
2. Jaeger style. ( .50-.54 cal) Patched round ball etc.
a. Accuracy - Short Bbl. style ( 28-30" ) good accuracy to 100 yd. [2-3 groups ,deteriorates @ longer ranges. Long Bbl. ( forerunner of PA/KY types ( 36-48") good groups @ 200 ( 6-8" common) @ 300 yd. - 10-12 yds ( me = 12-18")
3. Baker Rifle ( Brit. Mil. 1800-1840) .65 cal
a. Accuracy -
1. Original twist was 1" in 120" (very little) the 95th rifles, required the following - all had to hit a target appox. 12x12" @ 100 yd.s - #2 level @ 200 yd.s #3 level upper body size @ 300 yd. (prone position.) ( records report a 95th marksman picked off a French Gen. & his aide @ over 600 yd.)
Note- both myself & 2 friends own & shoot modern repo Bakers with a 1 in 66 twist. reg. In comp.,Groups @ 100yds, shot off hand & 80 gr. of powder, reg shoot under 3"
b.Power @ 100 yd ( above target) & "combat load (120 gr. ) it will lay it flat out ( we, with our "modern" Bakers often hit so hard, we break the 1/4" support chain.)
Huntig. - Most of us hunt with our guns. .50 & 54cal rifles are normaly used for deer & .54 cal for elk & bear. Most of us limit the range (deer & elk) to under 100 yd.or less. ( I hold under 75 yd. ) Not because we can not hit the vitals @ longer ranges, we want to quarenty a clean, 1 shot kill !!! Yes some use smooth bores & usually take their game under 50 yd.
If you are interested in learning more ( including the use of match locks + loading cleaning etc) check out this site http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.com/forum/ ( I am PUFFER on this site
Jack
|
|
|
|
|
Shayan G
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Jack, thank you very much for sharing your expertise with us! It's great to have someone with so much firsthand experience chipping in.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack W. Englund
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | You will have to forgive my ignorance but was not rifling a more modern occurance that was not common until fairly recently? I thought a musket with rifling was called... a rifle..
From what I have read of early modern warfare a number of materials were used for balls- I had a huge drawer at work full of little musket and other fiream balls where I worked. Interesting stuff.
RPM |
The use of "rifles" by the British Army (issued) started in 1740s ( Rifled carbines -.615 cal [carbine cal.]& .693 [musket bore] The "German "Jaegers" use predated this by a # of years. Actually, one of the first "recorded use of riles ( called "screwed guns" & thought to be wheel-locks, gotten from Germany ] was in 1644 @ Lathom Seige. Historians believe that "screwed guns" were used on the continent 100yr.s earlier.
A musket with rifling, sometimes was refered to as a rifle, most often as a "rifled musket" (with a VERY slow twist)
Most BP/ML guns used pure, soft lead balls. (pre 1840s)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jack...
No need to be concerned about your posts, as they were dead on.
I think that something our contributors should keep in mind regarding some of the legendary long shots of the Rev. War is that if these riflemen were using guns of small caliber - as you point out, smaller caliber rifles were more common than larger calibers - then some of these stories begin to lose credibility. Like you, I own and shoot several muzzle loaders of various calibers and configurations, including a .54 caliber percussion mountain rilfe, a .50 caliber converted snaphaunce Scottish rifle, a .38 caliber Southern flintlock mountain rifle and a short land pattern .75 musket. I have only used the percussion gun for hunting but, like you, when using it I feel that I have to confine my shots to 100 yards or less to be sure of a clean kill, and this is a powerful rifle.
Several years ago I took the .38 caliber rifle to a rendezvous. Part of the competition for the weekend was a woods walk. You walk a course on a wooded trail and look for steel targets at various ranges and in various settings. The first target was a gong at about 90 yards. After spotting the gong, which was difficult in itself, I aimed and fired my little flinter. From what seemed like a very vast distance, came a tiny "ding". I had actually hit the thing, which I thought was pretty good. However, I doubt I could hit it consistently with my rifle and it certainly didn't do any damage to the going because there were only 28 grains of FFFG pushing the bullet.
The problem with shooting a patched round ball at a target 200 - 300 yards distant is the poor ballistics of the round ball. It slows down quickly due to air resistance. The round ball is a very poor ballistic shape. It is also affected by cross winds, as are all bullets, but probably more so. Clearly 19th c. marksmen realized the shortcoming of the round ball and developed picket bullets and other elongated rounds capable of more range and better accuracy.
I think if Tim Murphy did drop Simon Fraser at 300 yards, even with several tries, that he was pretty lucky. I also think he was shooting a gun of bigger caliber or the ball would not have carried that far or had the power to kill at that range. That is not to take anything away from his ability as a marksman.
What do you think about that?
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
Jack W. Englund
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some observations of the bow vs a musket in warfare.
The English & Welch long bowmen were GREATLY feared. The # of arrows they could put in the air, was staggering. & according to reports I have read & a live demo I witnessed, with the "proper head, they could & did penetrate plate armour.
Why the transition to guns??? I think a lot of the reasons have been disscussed here , PLUS I am not an expert in early warfare & tactics.
But here are some "personal thoughts"
I.Pentitration - Although properly eguiped a long bw shaft could penetrate plate armour, most often they did not. And a shield (wood or metal,evenif the arrow penertrated, it's force was lost & the human target survived. Not so with a lg. cal. musket ball fired from under 100 yd.I have fired a .75 ball @ a 1" oak blank, result a shattered plank & a solid hit o the steel plate behind it. Steel, we use 3/4 - 1" thick steel as target "gongs. why ?? 1/2" gets a SERIOUS dent in it. 1/4" forget it. often a BIG ugly hole. 1/8" big ugly hole +if you wear holding against your body, you to would also have a BIG ugly hole.
2. Killing power - ( the following is from my experience of over 50yr of hunting & a # of years as a WA ST hunter Ed Inst. (lead)
A. One of the major factors, in making a "clean kill" is not only hitting the vitals, but the shocking power of the projectile. This is why hunting ammo is of a type that "expands"
B.Shocking power of an arrow (even from a moder compound 100 #er = almost ZERO> Far too often, I have seen deer dead over 100s of yd from where they were hit. Not because the archerer did not hit a vital spot, but because the arrow went clean through & had no shocking power + tissue distruction min in most cases., The animal "bled out ( as I understand it modern arrow heads are designed to cause massive bleeding) Please if you are a bow hunter, no disrepect intended, just my observations.
C A lg. cal lead ball = shocking power & tissue damage ( the larger the ball the more distruction.) Inmost cases the deer just drops, Have I shot a deer & have find it some distence away ?? Sadly to say, yes. Example, I "jumped a deer ( 30yd.)I should not have shot because he was running, but I did, I found him about 75yd away. Upon examination, I found that I had literally blown his heart a lung away, but because of adrenalin (sp) etc, he still covered that distanc.
My conclution, if I had my choise (& I hope I don't0 I would rather be hit by an arrow than a .54 - .75 cal lead ball.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack W. Englund
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lin Robinson wrote: | Jack...
No need to be concerned about your posts, as they were dead on.
I think that something our contributors should keep in mind regarding some of the legendary long shots of the Rev. War is that if these riflemen were using guns of small caliber - as you point out, smaller caliber rifles were more common than larger calibers - then some of these stories begin to lose credibility. Like you, I own and shoot several muzzle loaders of various calibers and configurations, including a .54 caliber percussion mountain rilfe, a .50 caliber converted snaphaunce Scottish rifle, a .38 caliber Southern flintlock mountain rifle and a short land pattern .75 musket. I have only used the percussion gun for hunting but, like you, when using it I feel that I have to confine my shots to 100 yards or less to be sure of a clean kill, and this is a powerful rifle.
Several years ago I took the .38 caliber rifle to a rendezvous. Part of the competition for the weekend was a woods walk. You walk a course on a wooded trail and look for steel targets at various ranges and in various settings. The first target was a gong at about 90 yards. After spotting the gong, which was difficult in itself, I aimed and fired my little flinter. From what seemed like a very vast distance, came a tiny "ding". I had actually hit the thing, which I thought was pretty good. However, I doubt I could hit it consistently with my rifle and it certainly didn't do any damage to the going because there were only 28 grains of FFFG pushing the bullet.
The problem with shooting a patched round ball at a target 200 - 300 yards distant is the poor ballistics of the round ball. It slows down quickly due to air resistance. The round ball is a very poor ballistic shape. It is also affected by cross winds, as are all bullets, but probably more so. Clearly 19th c. marksmen realized the shortcoming of the round ball and developed picket bullets and other elongated rounds capable of more range and better accuracy.
I think if Tim Murphy did drop Simon Fraser at 300 yards, even with several tries, that he was pretty lucky. I also think he was shooting a gun of bigger caliber or the ball would not have carried that far or had the power to kill at that range. That is not to take anything away from his ability as a marksman.
What do you think about that? |
Thank you Lin.
Your "trail walk" story is great. !!
Out here, in the Pacific NW, trail walks are common . One of the things we try to do, is have a people spotting & listening for the "small bore shooters.Like you said, @ that range, just a ping.& further out you look for the "strike ( I have this prob. in pistol matches. my favorite gun is a .44 cal rifled Mortimer "saw handle" ( 17 gr, powder) @ 25 yd I get a ding # on the smaller targets, I get some movement, but @ 50 yd. (even with 20 gr.) I have to have a "spoter"
One of the best & most fun "trail walk" is an inventional called Running Cayuse. 2 yr ago I was teamed with a man who used a .40 KY flinter The targets ranged from a 2"x 12" chain @ 50yd to several 8" dia x 4' "gas cyl, placed 200-300 yd out (own in the gullies & on the hil ( this course had 25 target scatter "hill & dale" on a 1/4 mile trail. Anyway, this man was an expert shot, but after the 1st 5 targets, he had only scord 3, all under 100 yd. The scorer & I ?? that. So we sent back for a scope & had him reshoot the other 2 & sure enough he hit them. He akso ended up hiting 1 of the 200 yd ++ cyl.s (so it can be done, but not by me)
I do not know the drop of his ball But the drop on my .54 cal Mortimer rifle is, @ 250++ about 36" (95 gr for this range) What is fun is watching my .62 cal Baker ball @ this range. ( someone else shooting it) It resembles a morter round.( one of our events has a 7' steel bear @ 300 yd. Aiming point ( 112 gr.) 1' above it's head, hitting point = crotch.( about a 4' drop.)
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Nov, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the info gents. I had assumed rifling had to have been about for some time prior to superseeding the smoothbores but if they actually began in the 16th that would be an incredibly slow trip if it is not until the 18th century they begin issuing soldiers with them! It is interesting nonetheless and I suppose the main issue is expense verse application. If it works for the job then there is less incentive to push for expensive changes.
Jack,
Thanks for the run down. Very interesting information. Do any of your friends shoot earlier era muskets? Most of the people I know shoot similar era muskets so I am guessing earlier ones might not be as popular. I for a short time thought about getting into bow hunting... Got all the gear together but had to wait till 18 and my Mother did not like the idea of me on a hunt. By the time I was old enough and had time my uncle who was the avid hunter (with nearly every type of weapon knonw to man it seems) retired from work and hunting. Such is life I suppose. I can say those hunting arrow look awefully mean. The ones I had had the double triagular heads and had a secondary barb behind them. Still sitting in a box at home.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Elnathan Barnett
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Nov, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wasn't going to resurrect the thread until I read Lin's post, but something needs clarifying. American rifles at the time of the Revolution were much bigger than .40 caliber, more about .50-.54.
Here is something I have saved from a thread on a muzzleloading forum:
In 1804 Captain Barber, commander of the Duke of Cumberlan's Corps of Sharp-Shooters, published "Instructions for the Formation and Exercise of Volunteer Sharp-Shooters", in London. In that book he comments on rifles, and marksmanship, as well as tactics. Barber was a veteran of the American Revolution, and although his work was published in 1804, his is a period source none the less. Here's what he wrote,...,
"The rifle guns of America and Germany were formerly considered superior to those of any other country; and it must be admitted, that the long rifles of the Americans throw a ball 100 or 150 yards with more truth [accuracy], than the military rifles of this country [England]...,"
"The advantage in the American rifles, for short ranges [150 yards or less] is derived from the length of the barrel, which by having a longer continuance of the spiral grooves, more completely ensures its [the bullet's] rotary motion; it's length also by extending the two sights further asunder, diminishes the angle of any deviation that may happen in taking aim, and the smallness of the balls (generally from thirty to forty to the pound) requiring but little explosive force, further contribute to the nice preservation of the level [moderate recoil]." (.537-.488)
Further, I have collected the following:
Col. George Hanger- "no larger than thirty-six to the pound: at least I never saw one of larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds." (.506)
Isaac Weld- "thirty to sixty to the pound" (.426-.537)
Rev. Joseph Doddridge- "few carried more than forty-five to the pound, and bullets of less size were not thought sufficiently heavy for hunting or war." (.469)
Allowing for 15/1000 of an inch for bullet clearance (bullets were looser fitting back them), that works out to approximately .44 to .55 caliber., and the lower figure comes from Weld, who was around a bit later. in the 1790s. If we drop him, we come out with a figure of .48-.55.
Now, surviving examples pictured in Shumway's Rifles of Colonial America and Kindig's Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age average out to about .55, IIRC. While I suspect that the average is skewed upwards slightly due to wear over the lives of the weapons, the period sources noted above indicate that it is not too far off. There is also one period reference to a rifle that shot an ounce ball (.66), indicating that, contra Colonel Hanger, there were rifles that fired a bigger ball than 36 to the pound (about .52, I believe.)
Here is the conversion chart:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/sh...id/197045/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Nov, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elnathan Barnett wrote: | I wasn't going to resurrect the thread until I read Lin's post, but something needs clarifying. American rifles at the time of the Revolution were much bigger than .40 caliber, more about .50-.54.
Here is something I have saved from a thread on a muzzleloading forum:
In 1804 Captain Barber, commander of the Duke of Cumberlan's Corps of Sharp-Shooters, published "Instructions for the Formation and Exercise of Volunteer Sharp-Shooters", in London. In that book he comments on rifles, and marksmanship, as well as tactics. Barber was a veteran of the American Revolution, and although his work was published in 1804, his is a period source none the less. Here's what he wrote,...,
"The rifle guns of America and Germany were formerly considered superior to those of any other country; and it must be admitted, that the long rifles of the Americans throw a ball 100 or 150 yards with more truth [accuracy], than the military rifles of this country [England]...,"
"The advantage in the American rifles, for short ranges [150 yards or less] is derived from the length of the barrel, which by having a longer continuance of the spiral grooves, more completely ensures its [the bullet's] rotary motion; it's length also by extending the two sights further asunder, diminishes the angle of any deviation that may happen in taking aim, and the smallness of the balls (generally from thirty to forty to the pound) requiring but little explosive force, further contribute to the nice preservation of the level [moderate recoil]." (.537-.488)
Further, I have collected the following:
Col. George Hanger- "no larger than thirty-six to the pound: at least I never saw one of larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds." (.506)
Isaac Weld- "thirty to sixty to the pound" (.426-.537)
Rev. Joseph Doddridge- "few carried more than forty-five to the pound, and bullets of less size were not thought sufficiently heavy for hunting or war." (.469)
Allowing for 15/1000 of an inch for bullet clearance (bullets were looser fitting back them), that works out to approximately .44 to .55 caliber., and the lower figure comes from Weld, who was around a bit later. in the 1790s. If we drop him, we come out with a figure of .48-.55.
Now, surviving examples pictured in Shumway's Rifles of Colonial America and Kindig's Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age average out to about .55, IIRC. While I suspect that the average is skewed upwards slightly due to wear over the lives of the weapons, the period sources noted above indicate that it is not too far off. There is also one period reference to a rifle that shot an ounce ball (.66), indicating that, contra Colonel Hanger, there were rifles that fired a bigger ball than 36 to the pound (about .52, I believe.)
Here is the conversion chart:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/sh...id/197045/ |
Elnathan...
A lot of the guns in Shumway's and Kindig's books have been "freshed out" which is to say they had been bored to a larger caliber when the rifling wore down. That was common practice, and many times the rifling was not renewed after they were bored out, resulting in what is known as a "smooth rifle". There were also "purpose built" smooth rifles. A quick look at John Bivins' book on the long rifles of North Carolina turned up only a few rifles of the 36 illustrated in the book that had a bore bigger than .45 caliber. One was .50 caliber. The preponderance of the guns in the this book were in the .40 -.45 caliber range although I did not go through them one by one to come up with an average. Some of them postdate the Rev. War, but were within the golden age of long rifle construction so I think it is fair to say that they are representative of rifles from the era.
I find Capt. Barber's comments interesting for two reasons. One is that he thinks that the barrel must be longer to make the best use of the rifling, which while not false is overstated. The second reason he gives for accuracy is more important and has a larger effect, and that is sight radius. He hits the nail squarely on the head there. I assume that in both cases he was referring to the differences in the American product and the German made Jaeger rifle.
My point in my post was simply that if the rifles used were of smaller caliber, then the poor ballistics of the round ball come into play much more. A larger round ball will carry much further and should be more accurate since its mass, once it starts spinning in the barrel, should maintain the spinning motion out of the barrel better than a small bullet. I do not know what caliber bullet Tim Murphy used and his rifle may have been a big bore. But no matter what caliber a round ball muzzle loader is shooting, 300 yard shots are going to be problematic. For me, in nearly 40 years of shooting the fascinating beasts, a 100 yard shot was just about the limit of my range.
Excellent post which shows a lot of research on your part.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jesse Pointen
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Nov, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
yeh well this thread has gone a little off topic let's just let it drop back... ill post further information as i get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack W. Englund
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Nov, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Thanks for the info gents. I had assumed rifling had to have been about for some time prior to superseeding the smoothbores but if they actually began in the 16th that would be an incredibly slow trip if it is not until the 18th century they begin issuing soldiers with them! It is interesting nonetheless and I suppose the main issue is expense verse application. If it works for the job then there is less incentive to push for expensive changes.
RPM |
Actually it was not until the mid 19th century, that the armys started to phase out the musket as the PRIMARY weapon for warfare. Why???
IMHO,
1. The resistence to change, is high on the list. I still "marvel @ the fact, that even as late as the Civil War, they still lined up, fixed bayonets & charged.
2. Tactics of the day, the mass charge over open ground, was best countered by mass fire & the musket , because of it's rate of fire, provided that. (over the rifles of the day.The Ferguson Rifle may have been the exception, but see above) & it's higher resistence to fowling.
3. Ease of manufactoring. The musket was easier to make, therefore less expensive,
Any way it did occure, just as the musket replaced the bow.
Jack
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Nov, 2007 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to see some evidence from period accounts to support the claims of accuracy given by Stephen and others. I've read many of the English sources on the subject and I can't recall firearm supporters making that argument. John Smythe complained at length about the inaccuracy of guns. Pro-gun writers stressed the gun's great range and ability to penetrate armor. The didn't extol the weapon's accuracy.
The exact date in question does make a significant difference. In the middle of the sixteenth century, there's little to suggest guns were superior to anything. De la Vega wrote about how the Amerindians laughed at guns in Florida. Bows and crossbows ruled there. Fourquevaux considered bows and crossbow better and suggested using them over guns when available. He gave the example of a crossbowman who killed many more than any gunner during a siege. This implies that crossbows were more accurate than guns in Fourquevaux's time.
I can believe early guns were more accurate than they've been given credit for, but I serious doubt they were significantly more accurate than bows, at least in the sixteenth century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic