18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[Artificer]

No doubt too tempting a shot, though of course it demonstrated he could not hit any of the two Officers and Bugle Horn Man at that range.

Guess he didn't have those modifications.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Back in the military training days (young eyes) I had no problem hitting torso targets standing, offhand at 300 yards - M14, NOT a muzzleloader. Good shooting, within reason, is possible.

This reminded me of an experience I had on a civilian club range near Temecula, CA back in the 90's and may be apropos to this thread. After shooting a foreign rifle that theretofore I had very little respect for because the people using it were not trained very well, I found the rifle a LOT more accurate than I ever imagined.

The long range "back drop" or impact area was a fairly good sized hill. They had set up steel half silhouettes going up the hill they used for some Law Enforcement training and some matches. So I stood up to shoot and used a hasty sling. It soon proved boring hitting so often at the 200 yard silhouette, so I kept going to the longer range ones until the last was at 350 yards. I had a small crowd of folks watching as almost every shot resulted in a DING of the metal being hit.

However, most of the onlookers did not realize how I kept hitting the silhouettes and especially on the first shot at each new longer range silhouette. Because there was a hill behind the targets, I often hit LOW on the first shot but the bullet bounced off the ground and hit the target. Because there was almost no vegetation on the hill and it was so dry, I could see the impacts of the bullets by the tiny puffs when they hit the ground. So I aimed higher on the hill for the follow up shots until I had an aiming point high enough above the silhouettes that the bullets hit the silhouettes and not from bouncing off the ground. Of course, I didn't tell anyone how I did it. :grin:

OK, bringing that to this thread, I wonder if some of the hits that Riflemen made in the 18th century at longer ranges were from the bullets bouncing off the ground in front of the enemy soldiers? Now, I have no documentation and this is complete speculation, but it is possible, especially with the bullet drops at longer ranges.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

:idunno: Sure seems reasonable. Nelson was skipping cannon ball just a few years after the AWI. It served as inspiration for WW2 bouncing 'Dam Busters'. I am sure Nelson wes not the first.

 

[Artificer]

I know it was a tactic used with small "grasshopper" and "galloper" guns/cannon at the time, but I'm not sure it would have been deliberate by the Riflemen. Rather, the shots landed low, bounced off the ground and hit an enemy?

Gus

 

[RAEDWALD]

Technically OT (being a Lee Metford breechloader) but my grandfather told me that during the South African War they established ranges by watching the fall of shot of the best marksmen until they were on target for the enemy, read off the range on the sights and everyone set their sights accordingly.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Yet we DO have documentation that in the War, Riflemen were ordered to fire no further than 150 yards.

Gimme a break. Riflemen seldom paid attention to orders. They were volunteers with minds of their own. Very independant. I'm going to pull a 'Spence' here and ask "what documentation". Some may have been ordered but, I'm sure, they still did what they wanted to do.

 

[Artificer]

Documentation was already mentioned earlier in the thread. One such set of orders seems to have come from Light Horse Harry Lee, either from his superior Officer or himself.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The account of your Grandfather's unit brings to mind something else that would be applicable to this thread.

I'm sure then as now, some of the 18th century Riflemen were better at estimating range and some better at seeing where a missed shot landed, if possible. Another good reason to have at least four or five Riflemen acting in small groups, as Dan Morgan did at Saratoga.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Here is a link to one such documentation and it goes into great detail on why Riflemen were ordered not to fire beyond 150 yards. Light Horse Harry Lee was certainly more knowledgeable about the capability of Riflemen in the AWI than any of us today.
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showpost.php?post/1569874/

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

Here is a link to one such documentation and it goes into great detail on why Riflemen were ordered not to fire beyond 150 yards. Light Horse Harry Lee was certainly more knowledgeable about the capability of Riflemen in the AWI than any of us today.
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showpost.php?post/1569874/

Gus

OK, interesting. But, I doubt it was obeyed by those who thought they had a good long distance shot.

 

[hanshi]

[/quote]

I wanted to separate this part out, because I think it especially important.

I imagine that heavier charge was also one you found gave the best accuracy at longer range?

I think some people think or believe that for longer range shooting, one just kept adding more powder and expects the rifle to group the same with every increase in powder. When in fact too much powder is going to cause the groups to open up and be less accurate.

Gus [/quote]




As an example of what I said about varying powder charge, I'll add this.

My .40 is accurate and very fast with 40 grains of 3F. But at 100 yards hits lower than I like. I can up the charge to 60 grains (the load I'd use if I hunted deer with it) and get fine accuracy at 100 yards (actual groups not spreads) and it groups higher on the target where it needs to be. Willy nilly charging is a waste of time and powder so I hope you see what I was getting at.

And as for the riflemen not having the option to improve the sights, they might could aim like I do by using sense of smell instead of their eyes. :grin:

 

[tenngun]

Washington did a line item veto on a request for bath tubs for his army, stating that in two months the creeks would be warm enough for bathing. If them Redcoats were the same they may have had an air about them.
Noses can be trained, and I don't know how good yours is. However I doubt you could smell a four hundred yard shot any better then I could hit with both my eyes :rotf:

 

[Artificer]

In modern day vernacular, the shot the Rifleman took at Hanger and Tarleton might have been valuable as harassing fire; but since the Rifleman touched neither of the Officers or the Bugle Horn Man, it was a complete bust as a Sniper/Sharpshooter shot.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I wanted to separate this part out, because I think it especially important.

I imagine that heavier charge was also one you found gave the best accuracy at longer range?

I think some people think or believe that for longer range shooting, one just kept adding more powder and expects the rifle to group the same with every increase in powder. When in fact too much powder is going to cause the groups to open up and be less accurate.

Gus

As an example of what I said about varying powder charge, I'll add this.

My .40 is accurate and very fast with 40 grains of 3F. But at 100 yards hits lower than I like. I can up the charge to 60 grains (the load I'd use if I hunted deer with it) and get fine accuracy at 100 yards (actual groups not spreads) and it groups higher on the target where it needs to be. Willy nilly charging is a waste of time and powder so I hope you see what I was getting at.

And as for the riflemen not having the option to improve the sights, they might could aim like I do by using sense of smell instead of their eyes. :grin:
[/quote]


Yes, we are on the same track, which I figured we were when I wrote the post. I just wanted to point out to others that merely increasing powder charges without concern for grouping, was/is detrimental to long range shooting.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

Sure you can see the target and sights at the same time by using the proper technique.

Put the target or the part of the target you want to hit at the top of the front sight.
Then adjust the sight picture to where half the front sight, base of the front sight, etc., is even with the top of the groove of the rear sight, then fire.

Works with .22's , rifles, shotgun slugs, and pistols.

I am constantly surprised at the number of shooters who do not know this method.

 

[hanshi]

Washington did a line item veto on a request for bath tubs for his army, stating that in two months the creeks would be warm enough for bathing. If them Redcoats were the same they may have had an air about them.
Noses can be trained, and I don't know how good yours is. However I doubt you could smell a four hundred yard shot any better then I could hit with both my eyes :rotf:

I'll admit, then, that my range limit for shooting by sense of smell is not much over 150 yards...that is unless the wind is at my back. :wink:

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Documentation was already mentioned earlier in the thread. One such set of orders seems to have come from Light Horse Harry Lee, either from his superior Officer or himself.

Gus

Light Horse Harry Lee is not a good example. He not only did NOT normally command any rifleman (he was a cavalry officer), He abandoned the ones he was supporting at Guilford Courthouse to Tarleton's Dragoons who ripped through the riflemen and scattered them.

Lee was actually given part of Daniel Morgans corp along with a detachment of Virginia Cavalry on November 28, 1777 to bolster the local militia and harass the enemy in New Jersey. They spent about a week doing so before returning to the rest of Greene's army at Whitemarsh where he relinquished command of the rifle corp.

Now, if you had a quote of Daniel Morgan telling his riflemen to only shoot at 150 yards, that would be convincing. But you won't find such a quote from any rifle company commander because they knew better. The rifleman's advantage was inflicting casualties before the Brits could get within musket range of them plus their ability to snipe officers and artillery crews. They knew they could not compete with the speed of fire of the smootbore muskets and they also knew they didn't have bayonets to counter the Brit's. So close-in fighting was not something they liked to do. Their advantage was accuracy at distance.

I am not a great shot but even I had no trouble hitting a metal 3'x4' hanging target at 200 yards with my .50 cal rifle. I fired at the middle of the target and saw how far low and off to the right my original shot hit. I then aimed at the upper left corner of that target and hit it three times out of three. Now that's a big target, but it's pretty decent representation of a man's torso at that distance. These folks made their living with their rifles for at least half of the year and were undoubtedly much more skilled with their rifles than I.

Some of the Generals late in the war (General Anthony Wayne for example) didn't like riflemen at all and some required them to turn in their rifles, take muskets and become part of the line or light infantry troops. That didn't work out very well.

Mad Anthony Wayne was of the opinion that riflemen running back through the lines as the Brits advanced caused the line troops to fear the advancing Brits (he probably had a point there). He also felt only troops with bayonets could stop troops with bayonets (he was correct there too). Of course, if you use riflemen successfully, there will be a lot fewer Brits with bayonets to take on those Continental troops with bayonets. Mad Anthony Wayne didn't even want to see riflemen unless they had bayonets. So you have to consider the source before relying upon them for a general representation of what riflemen did.

If you're interested in how riflemen were utilized during the Rev War, I'd recommend a book called "They Are Indeed A Very Useful Corps - American Riflemen in the Revolutionary War" by Michael Cecere (published by HeritageBooks.com). It is a great overview with lots of detail and full of primary documentation. It will give you a good feel for how it was to be a Colonial Rifleman during the AWI.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[Artificer]

I will certainly grant you that Lee was not anywhere as good as he thought he was. But your point is not that Lee didn't know the abilities of the Rifleman, but rather that he did not use them as well as he could or should have. IOW, your point is not ability of the Riflemen, but poor tactics. That was a separate issue. That point could be made of most of the American Leadership outside Dan Morgan or George Rogers Clark. Greene was smart enough to allow Dan Morgan an Independent command and the result was the victory at Cowpens.

I have already mentioned how a Rifleman holding off at 200 yards, such as aiming at the top of the enemy's hat, would often cause a hit on an enemy soldier, but that is an entirely different matter than making up for the drop and windage problems of a flint rifle between 200 and 300 yards and far worse between 300 and 400 yards. Now If you have documentation of Riflemen usually hitting at or beyond 300 yards in the field over unknown ground, that would be impressive.

Actually, what did not work out very well on the battlefield was the fact Riflemen did not have bayonets and the British learned to charge them while they reloaded and killed or scattered the Riflemen. That was EXACTLY what Lee warned about would happen in the letter linked above. Again, we are talking tactics rather than the abilities of Riflemen.

Anthony Wayne was just one of many American Officers who had their troops turn in rifles for muskets and the troops were much more effective afterwards, as a general rule and after they were basically trained. The American Military Militia Mob got turned into an Army at Valley Forge. Wayne proved this again by setting up what was probably the first "Boot Camp" at Legionville, during the Northwest Indian Wars and before his victory at Fallen Timbers.

Thank you for the suggestion on the book. I will look for it.

Gus

 

[54ball]

From the article, The man who shot General Simon Fraiser

Lamb claims that General Fraser, on his deathbed, said he "saw the man who shot him; he was a rifle man, and aimed from a tree."

"the following anecdote, related to me at Ballston Springs, in 1797, by the Hon. Richard Brent, then a member of Congress, from Virginia, who derived the fact from General Morgan's own mouth." He then goes on to describe the battle and General Fraser "all activity, courage and vigilance, riding from one part of his division to another, and animating the troops by his example." He describes the shooting: "Colonel Morgan took a few of his best riflemen aside; men in whose fidelity, and fatal precision of aim, he could repose the most perfect confidence, and said to them: 'that gallant officer is General Fraser; I admire and respect him, but it is necessary that he should die - take your stations in that wood and do your duty.' Within a few moments General Fraser fell, mortally wounded.

The old man, at that instant, discharged his gun, and the general officer pitched forward on the neck of his horse, and instantly they all wheeled about, the old man observing, 'I have killed that officer, let him be who he will.' I replied, 'you have, and it is a general officer, and by his dress I believe it is Fraser.' While they were turning about, three of their horses dropped down; but their further movements were then concealed by the smoke." The old veteran offered three reasons why he believed that he had witnessed the shot that killed General Fraser. "...the distance, by actual measurement, was within reach of a gun." The following day to settle a dispute as to the distance two sergeants, which he named, paced off the distance "from the stump where the old man stood to the spot where the horses fell, just twelve rods," or 198 feet, a distance within reasonable rifle range.

several authors have stated that Fraser told his friends after he was wounded , 'that he saw the man who shot him, and that he was a rifleman posted in a tree.'

tone seems to combine what was mentioned in his Appendix as coming from Morgan with his own interpretation. He states that, "Morgan...took a few of his sharpshooters aside, among whom was the celebrated marksman Tim Murphy, men on whose precision of aim he could rely, and said to them, 'that gallant officer yonder is General Fraser; I admire and respect him, but it is necessary for our good that he should die. Take your station in that cluster of bushes and do your duty.' Within a few moments a rifle ball cut the crupper of Fraser's horse, and another passed through his horse's mane. Calling his attention to this, Fraser's aide said, 'it is evident that you are marked out for particular aim, would it not be prudent for you to retire from this place?' Fraser replied, 'my duty forbids me to fly from danger.' the next moment he fell mortally wounded by a ball from the rifle of Murphy and was carried off the field by two grenadiers." With no evidence of Murphy even being among the sharpshooters Stone still credits Murphy with making the fatal shot. Tim Murphy is first mentioned in Jeptha R. Simm's History of Schoharie County and Border Wars of New York published in 1845[

Graham had married one of Morgan's great granddaughters. He had access to oral family history as well as Morgan's papers. Graham describes the shooting[5] of Fraser (which Graham spells with a "z"): "Selecting twelve of his best marksmen, he [Morgan] led them to a suitable position, when, having pointed out to them the doomed officer, he told them to kill him when next he came within reach of their rifles. 'He is a brave man; but he must die' - the only observation which fell from Morgan's lips besides his directions to his men - betrayed the struggle of generosity with duty in his breast. He afterwards said, that he attentively and somewhat anxiously observed his marksmen, when, a few minutes having elapsed, and Frazer re-appearing within gun-shot of them, he saw them all raise their rifles and, taking deliberate aim, fire."

One wonders why Murphy was not given credit during his own lifetime.

The 1856 version of the story by James Graham, great grandson-in-law of Morgan, who describes Morgan as assigning several men to the task seems entirely plausible and practical.

However, as modern and respected historians choose to perpetuate what may only be legend, it appears that when the legend becomes fact then it may be best to continue the legend.

OK....
This is likely the most significant gun shot in American History.

My opinions on this are to follow later.

 

[reddfreeman]

I'm new here, so a little late to the thread, but... in reference to that painting of available "targets", even I could hit ONE of them. Just maybe not the one I was aiming at!