• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Calibers during the Revolution?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes the rifle calibers varied a LOT. But in general they averaged probably from .45 to .58. Most of the very large game was gone by then and smaller calibers were becoming the norm. After the disagreement with our British brothers they continued toward the .50 range. During the westward expansion large calibers once again became necessary.
 
Doddridge, who was a witness, stated in his memoirs that anything shot a ball smaller than "45 to the pound" [.47] was not thought adequate to war. In today's barrels I would not go smaller than a .50 in a factory barrel if having a rifle made or making one myself from an ordered kit.

It would be cool, however to have something odd, say a rifle that was .48 or .52, but not only might you need to order a special barrel, but a mold too.

LD
 
I think that the smaller calibers became more or less a necessity when westward expansion over the Alleghenies required long trips with nearly nonexistent resupply. When one ventures out for six months to a year in wild hostile territory than lightness of pack becomes paramount. I think also that the settling of Pennsylvania by European immigrants is what kicked off the rifled barrel popularity over the smooth bores that the armies of the American Revolution were generally armed with. The marriage of smaller bores with rifling made the Kentucky Long rifle very practical East of the Mississippi.
Once the big muddy is crossed and westward expansion ventures out into Buffalo and Grizzly country we see a reemergence of Jagger thinking with large rifled bores in shorter rifles.
 
For infantry muskets. British were bored at .77-.80 with a .69 - .71 ball, French Muskets were .68-.72 using a .65 ball, German muskets were .75, Dutch Muskets were .72-.77. Spanish Muskets were .68-.70.

Light Infantry Muskets or Carbines were .60-.66.

Fowlers were .58 - .66.

Civilian Rifles were .45-.58

Military Rifles (Jaegers, Ferguson, and 1776 Rifle) were usually .54-.62.

French Musket Carbines were usually the same caliber as the muskets, although some may have been as small as .58
 
Here is then British Major George Hanger's account of the incident:

"I never in my life saw better rifles (or men who shot better) than those made in America; they are chiefly made in Lancaster, and two or three neighboring towns in that vicinity, in Pennsylvania. The barrels weigh about six pounds two or three ounces, and carry a ball no larger than thirty-six to the pound; at least I never saw one of the larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds. I am not going to relate anything respecting the American war; but to mention one instance, as a proof of most excellent skill of an American rifleman. If any man shew me an instance of better shooting, I will stand corrected.

Colonel, now General Tartleton, and myself, were standing a few yards out of a wood, observing the situation of a part of the enemy which we intended to attack. There was a rivulet in the enemy's front, and a mill on it, to which we stood directly with our horses' heads fronting, observing their motions. It was an absolute plain field between us and the mill; not so much as a single bush on it. Our orderly-bugle stood behind us, about 3 yards, but with his horse's side to our horses' tails. A rifleman passed over the mill-dam, evidently observing two officers, and laid himself down on his belly; for, in such positions, they always lie, to take a good shot at a long distance. He took a deliberate and cool shot at my friend, at me, and the bugle-horn man. (I have passed several times over this ground, and ever observed it with the greatest attention; and I can positively assert that the distance he fired from, at us, was full four hundred yards.)

Now, observe how well this fellow shot. It was in the month of August, and not a breath of wind was stirring. Colonel Tartleton's horse and mine, I am certain, were not anything like two feet apart; for we were in close consultation, how we should attack with our troops, which laid 300 yards in the wood, and could not be perceived by the enemy. A rifle-ball passed between him and me; looking directly to the mill, I observed the flash of the powder. I said to my friend, "I think we had better move, or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, shortly, amusing themselves at our expence. The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle horn man, behind us, and directly central, jumped off his horse, and said, "Sir, my horse is shot." The horse staggered, fell down, and died. He was shot directly behind the foreleg, near to the heart, at least where the great blood-vessels lie, which lead to the heart. He took the saddle and bridle off, went into the woods, and got another horse. We had a number of spare horses, led by negro lads."

Gus


This is what I was trying to post above....
 
Need a hefty ball to penetrate the heavy wool of the British uniforms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think .52-.53 is the safe bet for the most common rifle ball used for killing man in the Rev War. Contemporary accounts seem to advocate for this, as well as .52 caliber being adopted by the military in rifles and carbines, to be phased out mid 1850s by .58. Even so, several Cavalry carbines held on to .52 into the early cartridge era.

It's interesting, but historic accounts of battles against Indians in Ohio and Tennessee talk about battlefield pickup rifles with combatants continuing to shoot, which assumes a greater commonality of ammo than you'd think.
 
What were common calibers (in the way that we understand them today) Were they generally North of .50 or South of .50, or right in the middle?
As a lot of people have said, definitely north of .50 for the most part. I happen to know that my ancestor Daniel Boone's rifle was probably about .68 cal. He used a Pennsylvania Long Rifle, so it can be assumed that most civilian rifles were around there as well. But, as for civilian firelocks, most of them weren't really "models" as we consider them today. Most guns, and their calibers, were dependent on the whims of the gunsmith. The caliber depended on what sized mandrel they used. Size, length, pattern, all varied greatly from gun to gun. Military muskets were the only ones that were consistent, and there's a lot of info out there (Charlevilles were .69 cal, Brown Bess was .75 etc.)
 
I think .52-.53 is the safe bet for the most common rifle ball used for killing man in the Rev War. Contemporary accounts seem to advocate for this, as well as .52 caliber being adopted by the military in rifles and carbines, to be phased out mid 1850s by .58. Even so, several Cavalry carbines held on to .52 into the early cartridge era.

It's interesting, but historic accounts of battles against Indians in Ohio and Tennessee talk about battlefield pickup rifles with combatants continuing to shoot, which assumes a greater commonality of ammo than you'd think.
A grave site was recently disturbed in the PA - Ohio area, can’t remember exactly, and a slightly flattened ball of approx. 50 cal. was found under the bones. The researchers found other burials near by and dated them to around the F& I war period.
 
I believe the average American 'rifle' averaged in the low .40's when made. Iron is soft and many of those guns were refreshened multiple times increasing the caliber each time. Many original gun shop invoices list refreshing barrels.
Robby
 
I believe the average American 'rifle' averaged in the low .40's when made. Iron is soft and many of those guns were refreshened multiple times increasing the caliber each time. Many original gun shop invoices list refreshing barrels.
Robby

I’ve freshed a lot of original barrels. Iron is not soft. It’s hard work using sharp cutters to fresh an iron barrel. If anyone doubts this I can send you a piece of iron horseshoe and you can saw and file it and compare to modern mild steel. The softness of wrought iron is an old wives tale.


It’s not a simple thing to go from .40s to .50s. One caliber (.48 to .49) is a day’s work. If increased as much as suggested the barrel would need to be re- breeched as well. When really shot out it was common practice to cut off some of the breech and muzzle. Any barrel not shortened is quite unlikely to have been increased 3 or 4 calibers over its working life.
 
I believe the average American 'rifle' averaged in the low .40's when made. Iron is soft and many of those guns were refreshened multiple times increasing the caliber each time. Many original gun shop invoices list refreshing barrels.
Robby
I think that’s more of a local thing and time related. SMR made in the 1830s that’s probably true. Ohio and Michigan the same. Jagars tended to be larger in Europe in the 1700 time frame. Guns as big as .58 up to .75 not uncommon.
We see the beefy stocks and big flat butt plates used on revolutionary and prerevolutionary guns.
Later as the american rifle developed we see the movement to graceful, slim, and delicate.
You don’t need a two inch butt on a .40, you may not want a .58 on the tiny frame of an Ohio gun. ( yes I know some westren guns were made with curved thin butts)
 
I’ve freshed a lot of original barrels. Iron is not soft. It’s hard work using sharp cutters to fresh an iron barrel. If anyone doubts this I can send you a piece of iron horseshoe and you can saw and file it and compare to modern mild steel. The softness of wrought iron is an old wives tale.


It’s not a simple thing to go from .40s to .50s. One caliber (.48 to .49) is a day’s work. If increased as much as suggested the barrel would need to be re- breeched as well. When really shot out it was common practice to cut off some of the breech and muzzle. Any barrel not shortened is quite unlikely to have been increased 3 or 4 calibers over its working life.
I have freshened barrels too and have forged old iron, I consider it soft.
Robin
 
Back
Top