18th Century Rifle Accuracy

[smoothshooter]

Actually, that quote about the bathtubs pertains to Frederic The Great in January, 1764.

Not sure Washington would have bothered trying to get bathtubs on any large scale, since most of the time the American Army couldn't even get flour to make bread with, or even adequate clothing.

 

[Artificer]

Two separate British accounts on the death of General Fraser, that were made not long after the battle and may have been what we call "after action reports," remarked the shot was done by musket armed Americans nearer to Fraser on his flank and one noted it was a man with grey hair.

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

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

I looked at Amazon for that book. They have it. A new copy is fairly expensive but they have many used copies under $20.00. I ordered one and it is on the way. Should make a good addition to my meager library. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Gene L]

Gen Robert Ross was killed by an American rifleman (or maybe two) at the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812, in September of 1814. I don't know the range at which he was shot, and reportedly the rifleman was in turn killed by British return fire. But it was an effective shot and virtually ended the campaign on Baltimore.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Yes Gus, absolutely it was tactics not capabilities. I think you will enjoy Mike's book. It not only has great info in it, it is full of annotated documentation.

Mike Cecere has written a number of books, mostly about the Revolutionary War in Virginia and how Virginians figured into the war. One of his first books was about Capt. Thomas Posey and the 7th VA regiment. Captain Posey commanded a rifle company underneath Daniel Morgan and took over the rifle corp when Morgan took a hiatus because of his health.

An interesting thing I got to do with the VA 7th Regiment (reenactors) when I lived in Virginia was a living history day in Fincastle (Southwest Virginia), which is where Capt Posey raised a company of riflemen not once, but three times during the Revolutionary war. This was definitely considered the frontier at the time. City hall opened up their vault and allowed us to peruse a LOT of old and historic papers while we were there. They were kind enough to pull a few out with Thomas Jefferson's signature on them.

Was pretty cool to be standing in the vault in period attire with my rifle looking through the historical records with the curator. I had not expected to do that at the beginning of the day.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[Artificer]

I think I remember seeing signs to Fincastle when I made numerous trips to Roanoke years ago.

Wow, I do envy you being allowed to look at that documentation and in period clothing, no less.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Gene,

There is a LOT of ongoing controversy over the death of General Ross and who actually shot him. This was why I earlier asked Loyalist Dave if he knew much about it, as LD is a Marylander.

This is one link that talks about the various views on who shot General Ross, that may interest you:
http://www.baltimoremd.com/monuments/whokill.html

Gus

 

[Gustavo Hoefs]

I am not challenging your point of exaggeration of the facts but It is difficult for people today to accept some of the accuracy of the past because most people today do not understand or do not concieve of doing things using old methods. With this in mind i have the following questions for you. What is the average rifling twist used back then vs today? Has anyone forensically measured this on a variety of old barrels? My reason for asking is round balls are more and less accurate according to how they are loaded and what sort of rifling was put into the barrels? Maybe some of these guys had little things they would do to help improve accuracy that we have lost to history?

 

[Artificer]

Goo,

That is a good question on what was the average rifling twist back then. To my knowledge such a study has never been done and may never be done due to the fact that well used barrels were often re-bored/re-rifled within their active service life over many decades. However, there is somewhat common principle that some/many early gunsmiths in Germany/Switzerland used "One Turn in the Length of the Barrel" for rifling twist, but I am not sure how accurate that was here in the colonies.

The rifling twist was controlled by the twist on the Rifling Bench guide. Below is a link showing the 18th century rifling bench reproduction at Colonial Williamsburg at the bottom of the page. http://www.flintriflesmith.com/ToolsandTechniques/barrel_making.htm

If a Gunsmith wanted to make different rifle twists for barrels, he had to make a whole new bench or at least the guide portion for each twist. Probate inventories of Gunsmiths usually/often only mention one Rifling Bench, though in rare cases two are mentioned. So that seems to suggest they chose the twist they thought best and used that in all their rifled barrels. Of course when rifled barrels were imported from Germany or Switzerland, etc., you got the twist the gunsmith had made them.

There HAS been a study done on original Hawken Rifles and their twist was most commonly 1 in 48 inches. Going back to the old "One turn in the length of the barrel" theory, that does not agree because their barrels were not that long. The 18th century barrels were often around Four Feet in length, though. So a twist of 1 in 48 inches would be a good general rule of thumb and may or even likely is where the Hawken's got their rate of twist from. They surely would have changed the twist if their rifles did not give good accuracy.

The interesting thing is even today when it would be much, much easier to offer many different rifling twists, there seem to be only about four twists that are currently made in quantity. Those are 1 in 48 inches, 56 inches, 66 inches and 72 inches. For example, Rice offers the following twists because they believe them best in those calibers:
TWIST RATE:
Caliber - Twist
32 and 40 - 1/48
45 to 54 - 1/66
58 and 62 - 1/66 - 1/72

The questions of "What is the best rate of twist for a certain caliber, length of barrel, type and number of grooves, etc.?" are still being debated today, with proponents for one or more rate of twists.

Personally, I don't believe there ever will be an answer that one particular rate of twist is the "Magic Answer." In my years of experience with modern NM, sniper and target barrels; a range of twists are used for different calibers and none are the Magic Answer for all projectiles, though some are better for some projectiles. It is far more important how precisely uniform the bore diameter is along the length of the barrel, rather than the rifling twist and that is for projectiles that actually engage the rifling. PRB's don't engage the rifling near as much as modern projectiles and may be or even probably is the reason that more twist rates are not used.

Gus

 

[RAEDWALD]

I apologise again for basing a comment upon British military rifles but I do have figures for these and they are, or are based upon, German 18th century Jaeger rifles.

The Infantry Rifle Pattern 1800 onwards had a twist of 1:120. It's predecessor, the Pattern 1776 Rifle had a twist of 1:56. The German ones being bought in during that period had twists of 1:27, 1:29, 1:39. The rarely used Ferguson was 1:58. Bores generally being in the 0.65"-0.62" size to accommodate the standard service carbine ball cartridge for rapid fire although some German ones were .58 where they were serving in their own armies in America.

In Britain, in the times of the Baker, Volunteer Rifle units bought their own and used them principally on target ranges and frequently specified faster twists than the service Infantry Rifle but the Regular Army kept the 1:120 throughout it's long life as the relative freedom from fouling was a more important military need than supreme accuracy.

It is worth remembering that a well cast spherical ball is inherently stable. In the real world we cannot cast (or swage) perfectly spherical balls but a well cast one does need surprisingly little spin to stabilise it to compensate for any uneveness in sphericity or minor casting voids. However, one has to note the very fast twists of the German service rifles. Presumably they had a reason for this fashion.

 

[Artificer]

No need to apologize. I enjoyed reading your information on British Rifles. I did not know the Pattern 1776 Rifle had a twist of 1:56.

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

City hall opened up their vault and allowed us to peruse a LOT of old and historic papers while we were there. They were kind enough to pull a few out with Thomas Jefferson's signature on them.

Was pretty cool to be standing in the vault in period attire with my rifle looking through the historical records with the curator.

That would be super cool. Not Sunday yet, can I be envious? :wink: :bow:

 

[nkbj]

OK. So what was the expectation for rifle accuracy in the 18th century?
100 yds?
200 yds?
300 yds?
400 yds?

 

[Twisted_1in66]

Yes that's the same Fincastle. It's just north of Interstate 81 on Hwy 220/11 (exit 150 I think). The outskirts of Roanoke are just a little farther down the road and south of that. You could actually turn south on 11 and it will take you down into Roanoke.

The historical vault was in the city hall and it was like you would see in a bank with the giant and thick vault door. It is not normally open to the public. It was pretty interesting to see and The Virginia 7th Regiment reenactment group was there as part of Fincastle days. We basically set up a recruiting station like Capt. Posey did at that same place when he raised his companies of riflemen.

They had some pretty interesting maps too. One of them showed Fincastle County extending west towards what would become Chicago and yet the town of Fincastle was east of the County of Fincastle. Earlier and later maps included the town in the county and later maps divided it into more counties. County lines were in a bit of a state of flux in the 1700's there.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan

 

[Gustavo Hoefs]

Gus, Thank you for that info and the time you spent composing the post!
I looked at the link for the rifling bench and have given some thought to what you wrote. What occurred to me was that since there was generally one rifling bench per gunsmith, Wouldn't that mean one would not need to track down and measure the twist in all the barrels because it might be better to look for original rifling benches? Most likely all the rifles that maker produced would have the same twist. There is a partial picture of a guide that belonged to James A. Gillespie on page 138 of Bivon's L. R.'s of N.C. . I will need to look for more examples.
What makes sense to me now is for slow bullet a slow twist should be more appropriate.

 

[Artificer]

Goo,

The problem is that since most rifling benches were made of wood in the 18th century; not many are left due to loss from decay, fire or they just got thrown away/re-used for something else long ago, after they were no longer used.

You are most welcome.

Gus

 

[RAEDWALD]

If you take a look at this: https://archive.org/stream/handbookeconomi00powgoog#page/n521/mode/2up
and the preceding pages you can see that the processes used to make 18th century rifles in America and Europe were the same as in India. Except for working at a bench standing up instead of on the floor cross legged the operation of a Punjabi rifle maker would be familiar to any 18th century American gun maker, or a rural 19th century long rifle maker.

 

[Artificer]

You bet! They also likely pasted paper shims on the rifling cutter rods to control the depth of the rifling, as they did in Europe and America in the 18th century as well.

It has never failed to amaze me what simple technology could/did make very accurate rifles.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

OK. So what was the expectation for rifle accuracy in the 18th century?
100 yds?
200 yds?
300 yds?
400 yds?

Well, just like today, I'm sure that was broken down into two categories. 1. Mechanical Accuracy (what the rifle itself was capable of) and that includes the rifle, mould, powder and patch and 2. What the Rifle Shooter was capable of shooting from the rifle.

Bore reaming then as now was/is critical to accuracy. We know they could ream a bore so that it varied nor more than between .001" to .003" throughout the length of the barrel. The smaller the variation and more uniform the bore, the better accuracy was possible. BTW, our modern ML barrels are as good if not better in this than any they could make then.

Mould quality and ball size was as critical then as today. A really accurate barrel would not shoot a ball as well that was lopsided or the two halves did not align correctly. We know from period documentation that many imported moulds had problems. However, if the gunsmith who made the barrel also made the mould, then there was a much better chance of having a good mould/ball that really fit the barrel well.

Next came the quality of the powder and that seems to have varied a lot. Here is one example from a period Gunsmith.

" Christiansbrunn, the 9th September, 1773

Most valued Friend Martin Baer,

At your request I have prepared [completed/finished] a good rifle and sent it over to Mr. John Hopson together with 4 pounds of Powder. The rifle is decorated [inlaid] with silver wire and well made, as well as tested and she shoots right well. It has a double trigger, so that you can fire with the triggers either unset or set. Between the triggers there is a screw with which you can make it lighter or harder to fire. There is also a ball puller with which you can pull the ball out no matter how rusty she gets. She costs 8 pounds all together and with the powder @ 3 shillings per pound makes twelve shillings, for a total of L8.12.-. Because it is very good powder I have added two pounds more than you requested. I hope it will suit you well. You can write me a couple lines to let me know how you like it. Together with friendliest greetings I am your faithful

friend and servant,

Christian Oerter

Gunmaker"

What this letter seems to be telling us is the gunsmith found that powder so good and maybe/probably not common, that he doubled the amount of powder the customer ordered. I think it also tells us that powder gave the best accuracy in the rifle.

We also can't discount that the better the rifle fit the owner and especially if the rear sight was placed in the best spot on the barrel, it also aided in accuracy. Now, a REALLY GOOD rifle shooter can take a rifle that doesn't fit well and the sights are not set where it is best for his eyesight and still shoot well, but if those things are correct for the shooter, he/she can get better accuracy out of the rifle.

We also have to take into account the difference in people's vision then as now. For example, with modern corrective lenses, I was a pretty fair rifle shot though never was good enough to be a NM shooter. However in the time period, I would not have made a very good rifleman with my poor eyesight. So someone with good eyes in the period would have gotten more accuracy than anyone with any kind of vision problems.

We don't often think of many of these things in the period, because we are not hampered by them.

OK, will cut this post off and write more later.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

OK. So what was the expectation for rifle accuracy in the 18th century?
100 yds?
200 yds?
300 yds?
400 yds?

The quote Spence provided about one hunter being able to hit a dollar size coin most of the time he tried at 100 yards, offhand, was possible for a very good marksman and a good rifle. This speaks to both the quality of the rifle as well as the quality of the shooter.

The quotes about them hitting a somewhat larger target at 150 yards very commonly, also was possible and especially if they sighted their rifles high at 100 yards for a "Point Blank Aim" from 25 to 150 yards on deer sized game. A note should be made that while some of the Riflemen did that offhand, others did it using a rest.

Now as to the quotes that most of them could hit a man in the face at 200 yards, well, that gets pretty dodgy in my opinion, especially if they were shooting from Offhand. Some of the very best riflemen may have been able to do it more times than not from a rest, but I don't believe that was anywhere close to a common expectation of accuracy.

Beyond 200 yards gets even more dodgy and depends on whether the Rifleman ever practiced at those ranges. Then as now, you just can't get away from the effects of bullet drop and the wind on the ball.

IMO, 300 yards would have been VERY uncommon unless they had a chance to range their targets ahead of time. That means actually practicing or at least shooting and having someone tell them where their missed shots landed. It also depended strongly on how good the Rifleman was at judging distance to know how much to hold over the target.

IMO, 400 yards was only possible when they had practiced at that range with spotters and for use against a line of troops, rather than an individual target. WAY too difficult to judge how much they had to hold over and account for the effects of wind, otherwise.

Gus