1803 Rifle Questions

[FlinterNick]

Doing some research on the 1803 rifle.

Why did this rifle not have sling swivels?

What was the benefit to having the under rib ? Seems costly.

Did the lock have a fly? Can’t see why it would need it.

Did the nose band have any functional purpose ?

Were riflemen assigned kits with powder horns or flasks ?

Several publications have the rifles barrel at 33 - 36 inches, why go with the shorter barrel for a military arm ? Wouldn’t a 33 inch barrel provide less total range for a riflemen (lesser than expected or desired?).

 

[waarp8nt]

I'm curious about this rifle too.

The following link provides some info on barrel lenght;

https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=802

 

[tenngun]

Can’t answer all but the rib was there to space the ramrod hole, and let the tip clear the barrel. The brass band did help bind the fore stock. Some trade guns did this and was seen on early guns like some Dutch or French club butts, caps or plain became common.
Flys do help the lock run smooth and was seen on some single trigger arms.
I don’t know for American military riflemen but in Europe they were issued cartridge boxes and powderhorn and loose ball.
Three inches will only add about thirty feet per second to a shot. At a hundred yards would only add about ten FPS.
It seems to me the 1817 had swivels maybe it was just overlooked on the ‘03. But maybe not, in my oltimers mind I may have it confused with another gun.

 

[FlinterNick]

Can’t answer all but the rib was there to space the ramrod hole, and let the tip clear the barrel. The brass band did help bind the fore stock. Some trade guns did this and was seen on early guns like some Dutch or French club butts, caps or plain became common.
Flys do help the lock run smooth and was seen on some single trigger arms.
I don’t know for American military riflemen but in Europe they were issued cartridge boxes and powderhorn and loose ball.
Three inches will only add about thirty feet per second to a shot. At a hundred yards would only add about ten FPS.
It seems to me the 1817 had swivels maybe it was just overlooked on the ‘03. But maybe not, in my oltimers mind I may have it confused with another gun.

I’ve done some reading, from I can gather on the sling swivels is that Dearborn decided against them, for a few reasons. 1. Costs and 2. The Riflemen was expected to have his gun at the ready at all times, which would mean to me, not slung. Bearing in mind that these rifles were heavily designed after civilian guns, which also used to sling swivels.

In almost no instance will you find an original with sling swivels, I had asked the owner of the Rifle Shoppe about this illustration print of the 1803 rifle, and he came across one rifle with sling swivels that was converted to percussion, with a bayonet latch, leading him to believe it was used in either the Mexican War or the Civil War. He also said original 1803 rifles didn’t have flys on the tumbler, only the 1792 and 1794 contract rifles did. The lock by R.E. Davis had a fly which is a modern improvement.

I have a kit here I’m working on I was thinking about adding sling swivels and decided against it. Drilling through the underrib would likely put too much pressure on it and I’d have to alter the stock for a lug and swivel.