I've heard a lot about flintlock rifles such as the Kentucky rifle, Pennsylvania rifle, and the German hunting rifles of the early 18th century. I'm wondering though, how often these weapons were used in warfare. I've heard that people like Daniel Boone used them in the Revolutionary War, but I haven't heard much beyond that. So I guess I have several questions.
1) When and where were flintlock rifles used? I'm most interested in 17th - 18th Century wars in Europe and America (Indian Wars, Seven Years War, American Revolution, ect...). What role did rifles play in these engagements?
2) Were rifles used only for guerrilla tactics or did they have a place on open battlefields and fortification defenses? I've heard that smoothbore muskets were favored in battlefield situations for their higher rate of fire.
3) Are there any manufacturers that make accurate, high quality replicas of flintlock rifles?
Thank you
-Alain
| Alain D. wrote: |
| I've heard a lot about flintlock rifles such as the Kentucky rifle, Pennsylvania rifle, and the German hunting rifles of the early 18th century. I'm wondering though, how often these weapons were used in warfare. I've heard that people like Daniel Boone used them in the Revolutionary War, but I haven't heard much beyond that. So I guess I have several questions.
1) When and where were flintlock rifles used? I'm most interested in 17th - 18th Century wars in Europe and America (Indian Wars, Seven Years War, American Revolution, ect...). What role did rifles play in these engagements? 2) Were rifles used only for guerrilla tactics or did they have a place on open battlefields and fortification defenses? I've heard that smoothbore muskets were favored in battlefield situations for their higher rate of fire. 3) Are there any manufacturers that make accurate, high quality replicas of flintlock rifles? Thank you -Alain |
Hi there,
While rifles have been in use as long as guns have been produced, they have been primarily a hunting weapon. I say primarily because there are some exceptions.
1) the first time to my understanding that rifles played a significant role in a war is the American Revolution. There are quibblers out there that will argue that the Seven Years War was rifle use, but I have seen little proof. I can tell you that during the SYW, very few rifles were being produced in the colonies and weren't really considered a weapon of war.
In the Revolution, there were both American and British rifle regiments. the American riflemen were largely frontier regiments, thus the rifles for hunting purposes. On the British side, there were Jaeger units from Germany ( King George's homeland) and a British unit toting breachloading Ferguson rifles , but they were short lived due to getting crushed by American riflemen at the battle of Kings Mountain. There is a brilliant account of that battle BTW.
2) In a nutshell yes, with some exception. Rifle regiments were required to serve on battlefields in line at a few engagements, sorry I cannot recall specifics. It is also worth mentioning that a large percentage (30-45%) of "rifles" were made smoothbore. The term rifle in Colonial America referred to aesthetics as well as function. In a runaway description I once read "he took with him a 'rifle built smoothbore gun'". If you can, pick up "The rifle in Colonial America" by George Shumway. http://www.shumwaypublisher.com/store/shop/
3) There are MANY builders of rifles. I have built no less than 15 rifled guns. If you google the American Contemporary Longrifle Association you will find several fine makers. If price is no issue, look for Eric Kettenburg. He is the best of the best. you could also build one yourself. If you are interested let me know and I will direct you to the appropriate vendors and books.
Last edited by Jason Mather on Fri 13 Feb, 2009 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Maybe not the fully developed flintlock, but snaphaunce rifles saw a great deal of use in the wars between Sweden and Denmark in the second half of the 17th century. During the Scanian War (1675-79) snaphaunce rifles in the hands of danish guerilla fighters (and their swedish counterparts) was used with great effect.
And in the American War of Independece there were also a lot of rifles in use, the Long Rifle (or Kentucky-Pennsylvania Rifle) being the most famous. The Long Rifle was the weapon of choice for the american milita during the war, it was just as good for hunting as for war. They were used at the battle of Kings Mountain in 1780, were the american militia decisively defeated the british loyalist troops. Militia men armed with rifles were also a part of the american force that defeated the british at the battle of Cowpens 1781.
A maker hos makes quite nice rifles, and at good prices is Pedersoli, www.davide-pedersoli.com .
Regards, Mikael.
And in the American War of Independece there were also a lot of rifles in use, the Long Rifle (or Kentucky-Pennsylvania Rifle) being the most famous. The Long Rifle was the weapon of choice for the american milita during the war, it was just as good for hunting as for war. They were used at the battle of Kings Mountain in 1780, were the american militia decisively defeated the british loyalist troops. Militia men armed with rifles were also a part of the american force that defeated the british at the battle of Cowpens 1781.
A maker hos makes quite nice rifles, and at good prices is Pedersoli, www.davide-pedersoli.com .
Regards, Mikael.
Looks like Jason beat me to it, a very good answer to I might ad. :)
I can recomend getting the following book: Patriot Battles: How the War of Independence Was Fought By Michael Stephenson. Publisher: HarperCollins 2007 | 448 Pages | ISBN: 006073261X
It has all you want to know about rifles in battles of the period
It has all you want to know about rifles in battles of the period
The one distinction I would like to make is between militia units and riflemen units. Most rifle units in the American army were militia units but by no means were all militia units rifle units. Even up until the 1790s smoothbore guns VASTLY outnumbered rifles in America. Rifled barrels were far more costly to make and not importable, unlike the smoothbore barrel which came in by the crate full.
Last edited by Jason Mather on Tue 10 Feb, 2009 11:30 am; edited 1 time in total
Thank you all so much, this is very helpful.
I've heard that a tight fitting ball with little windage can be very accurate in a smoothbore, but that such balls were often not used for the sake of speed. When tight fitting balls are used how does the accuracy compare with rifles? And when firing a muzzle loader, is it safe to fire with anything that will fit down the barrel, or can tight fitting balls get stuck and cause explosions? I've heard many accounts of black powder muzzle loaders exploding when fired.
I've heard that a tight fitting ball with little windage can be very accurate in a smoothbore, but that such balls were often not used for the sake of speed. When tight fitting balls are used how does the accuracy compare with rifles? And when firing a muzzle loader, is it safe to fire with anything that will fit down the barrel, or can tight fitting balls get stuck and cause explosions? I've heard many accounts of black powder muzzle loaders exploding when fired.
Of course the earlier problem with Rifles is they could not really take a bayonet plug, making them far less effective in melee combat, but this changed 100 years or so before the revolutionary war.
I would hazard to guess that many militia riflemen, using civilian type rifles in the revolutionary war did not have fittings to take a batonet, which would have made them less effective in melee. But by this time it was due to the fact of non-military rifles in use, not that rifles could not take bayonets.
I would hazard to guess that many militia riflemen, using civilian type rifles in the revolutionary war did not have fittings to take a batonet, which would have made them less effective in melee. But by this time it was due to the fact of non-military rifles in use, not that rifles could not take bayonets.
| Jason Mather wrote: |
| Hi there,
While rifles have been in use as long as guns have been produced, they have been primarily a hunting weapon. I say primarily because there are some exceptions. 1) the first time to my understanding that rifles played a significant role in a war is the American Revolution. There are quibblers out there that will argue that the Seven Years War was rifle use, but I have seen little proof. I can tell you that during the SYW, very few rifles were being produced in the colonies and weren't really considered a weapon of war. In the Revolution, there were both American and British rifle regiments. the American riflemen were largely frontier regiments, thus the rifles for hunting purposes. On the British side, there were Jaeger units from Germany ( King George's homeland) and a British unit toting breachloading Ferguson rifles , but they were short lived due to getting crushed by American riflemen at the battle of Kings Mountain. There is a brilliant account of that battle BTW. 2) In a nutshell yes, with some exception. Rifle regiments were required to serve on battlefields in line at a few engagements, sorry I cannot recall specifics. It is also worth mentioning that a large percentage (30-45) of "rifles" were made smoothbore. The term rifle in Colonial America referred to aesthetics as well as function. In a runaway description I once read "he took with him a 'rifle built smoothbore gun'". If you can, pick up "The rifle in Colonial America" by George Shumway. http://www.shumwaypublisher.com/store/shop/ 3) There are MANY builders of rifles. I have built no less than 15 rifled guns. If you google the American Contemporary Longrifle Association you will find several fine makers. If price is no issue, look for Eric Kettenburg. He is the best of the best. you could also build one yourself. If you are interested let me know and I will direct you to the appropriate vendors and books. |
There were a few rifles in use during the F & I War. A recent publication by Jim Mullins, entitled "Of Sorts For Provincials" , shows two American rifles documented from that era. Were they common - in a word no. But, they were around and some were undoubtedly used in combat.
As you said, the rifle became a factor during the Revolution. It was such a factor that the British had at least one made by a contractor in an effort to determine why they were so effective. This gun is pictured in George Neuman's book on arms of the American Revolution. The inability to attach a bayonet to the end of a rifle - although a few examples have been found with barrels turned down to accommodate bayonets - and the slow rate of loading and firing compared to a musket made them unsuitable for use in regiments of the line. Rifles were used at Saratoga, where Gen. Simon Fraser was dropped by a shot from Tim Murphy - according to legend - and the one action where Ferguson's troops were actively engaged, at Brandywine. They were used many times in other battles and for harrassment of the British, as in Boston at the beginning of the war. I do have to correct one thing I think your are saying about Kings Mountain. Patrick Ferguson was there, but his riflemen were not. Ferguson led a conventionally armed force of Loyalist Regulars and Tory locals. When Ferguson was wounded and put out of action at Brandywine, the war department used his absence as an excuse to disband his small corps of riflemen. The rifles themselves were stored in New York and probably returned to England later. Almost none of them have turned up.
| Alain D. wrote: |
| Thank you all so much, this is very helpful.
I've heard that a tight fitting ball with little windage can be very accurate in a smoothbore, but that such balls were often not used for the sake of speed. When tight fitting balls are used how does the accuracy compare with rifles? And when firing a muzzle loader, is it safe to fire with anything that will fit down the barrel, or can tight fitting balls get stuck and cause explosions? I've heard many accounts of black powder muzzle loaders exploding when fired. |
DON'T PUT ANYTHING BUT LEAD IN A MUZZLELOADER!!! Beyond that as long as the projectile is seated properly over the propellant, you should be fine. I have heard bismuth shot is ok for bird hunting, but I haven't used it.
On the smoothbore/accuracy question, I load my favorite 54. cal smoothie with powder, wadding( leaves, grass, tow) ball, wadding and I find no measurable difference in accuracy within 50 yds.
| Lin Robinson wrote: | ||
There were a few rifles in use during the F & I War. A recent publication by Jim Mullins, entitled "Of Sorts For Provincials" , shows two American rifles documented from that era. Were they common - in a word no. But, they were around and some were undoubtedly used in combat. As you said, the rifle became a factor during the Revolution. It was such a factor that the British had at least one made by a contractor in an effort to determine why they were so effective. This gun is pictured in George Neuman's book on arms of the American Revolution. The inability to attach a bayonet to the end of a rifle - although a few examples have been found with barrels turned down to accommodate bayonets - and the slow rate of loading and firing compared to a musket made them unsuitable for use in regiments of the line. Rifles were used at Saratoga, where Gen. Simon Fraser was dropped by a shot from Tim Murphy - according to legend - and the one action where Ferguson's troops were actively engaged, at Brandywine. They were used many times in other battles and for harrassment of the British, as in Boston at the beginning of the war. I do have to correct one thing I think your are saying about Kings Mountain. Patrick Ferguson was there, but his riflemen were not. Ferguson led a conventionally armed force of Loyalist Regulars and Tory locals. When Ferguson was wounded and put out of action at Brandywine, the war department used his absence as an excuse to disband his small corps of riflemen. The rifles themselves were stored in New York and probably returned to England later. Almost none of them have turned up. |
I agree that there were rifles present during the SYW, but in so few numbers it is safe to say they were not a factor in the war.
Tis' true about Freguson, thanks for the correction.
When loading a smoothbore or rifle, is it necessary to use a smaller ball than the actual bore size in order to fit or does a .75 bore musket use a .75 ball? I've heard that the British would sometimes use balls down to .69 in a .75 bore barrel for a quicker rate of fire (someone else may be able to verify this). Does patching change the size of the ball that must be used?
I like some of the muskets available on the Military Heritage website, but I can't tell if they are worth their price. Does anybody know anything about the quality of their products? I've heard horror stories about people losing hands and going blind from black powder guns blowing up.
I like some of the muskets available on the Military Heritage website, but I can't tell if they are worth their price. Does anybody know anything about the quality of their products? I've heard horror stories about people losing hands and going blind from black powder guns blowing up.
| Alain D. wrote: |
| Thank you all so much, this is very helpful.
I've heard that a tight fitting ball with little windage can be very accurate in a smoothbore, but that such balls were often not used for the sake of speed. When tight fitting balls are used how does the accuracy compare with rifles? And when firing a muzzle loader, is it safe to fire with anything that will fit down the barrel, or can tight fitting balls get stuck and cause explosions? I've heard many accounts of black powder muzzle loaders exploding when fired. |
I'd think that a tight-fitting ball fired from a smoothbore gun would be a little less accurate than a tight-fitting ball fired from a rifled gun of similar caliber, just due to spin stabilization. How much less accurate, I'm not sure, which might mean that, as a practical matter in battlefield conditions, it might not be a factor.
Hi, I was looking at the Military Heritage website and there prices look fairly reasonable. Of course the issue with them is that you would have to have the powder hole drilled out before it will shoot. Depending on what you want and other factors there are some nice kits out there as well.
As far as gun blowing up, with a modern, well made barrel it shouldn't be too much of an issue if your careful with your powder charge. Well don't go crazy with the powder loads or accidentally double charge it. I have heard of issues with old "Damascus" barrels blowing apart but those where mostly old shotguns that I have heard of. Modern barrels are very solid.
And what size bullet to put in your rifle may depend on the gun. I think in my muzzle loader, some CVA model of .50 caliber, I think that it shoots a .500 in. bullet, but I wasn't shooting a round ball either. Round ball may be smaller as I do not remember what size was recommended for that gun.I may be wrong its been a while since I have played around with it. In modern guns the rounds name, ie 30-06 or .44 mag, has little to do with the actual bullet size.
So in short read up on what your guns limits are and what it the appropriate loads and rounds to use and stay on the light side if your not sure.
As far as gun blowing up, with a modern, well made barrel it shouldn't be too much of an issue if your careful with your powder charge. Well don't go crazy with the powder loads or accidentally double charge it. I have heard of issues with old "Damascus" barrels blowing apart but those where mostly old shotguns that I have heard of. Modern barrels are very solid.
And what size bullet to put in your rifle may depend on the gun. I think in my muzzle loader, some CVA model of .50 caliber, I think that it shoots a .500 in. bullet, but I wasn't shooting a round ball either. Round ball may be smaller as I do not remember what size was recommended for that gun.I may be wrong its been a while since I have played around with it. In modern guns the rounds name, ie 30-06 or .44 mag, has little to do with the actual bullet size.
So in short read up on what your guns limits are and what it the appropriate loads and rounds to use and stay on the light side if your not sure.
Last edited by Joel Minturn on Tue 10 Feb, 2009 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
When choosing a ball size for a smoothbore, you should pick a caliber smaller in size from your barrel bore in relation to the thickness of the patch you will be wrapping the ball in. For example, in my .62 caliber fowler I use a .60 ball, wrapped in a 1mm patch. This gives me a bit of wiggle room, and makes a plenty tight load for good pressure. A rifle bore would do the same thing, depending on the bore. Military shot was oftten looser, and may or may not have used a patch, depending on the situation.
Thank you all again for the responses. This is very helpful.
I've heard that some armies had special rifle units during the 18th Century. I understand that rifles were slower to load and use, but it seems like they would have been effective when used alongside faster shooting smoothbores. Why weren't these rifle units more popular before the development of the Baker Rifle?
I've heard that some armies had special rifle units during the 18th Century. I understand that rifles were slower to load and use, but it seems like they would have been effective when used alongside faster shooting smoothbores. Why weren't these rifle units more popular before the development of the Baker Rifle?
| Alain D. wrote: |
| Thank you all again for the responses. This is very helpful.
I've heard that some armies had special rifle units during the 18th Century. I understand that rifles were slower to load and use, but it seems like they would have been effective when used alongside faster shooting smoothbores. Why weren't these rifle units more popular before the development of the Baker Rifle? |
If you mean why didn't the authorities move faster to equip all their troops with rifles, then a part of the reason lies in economics. A major part. It would have been prohibitively expensive to suddenly replace all or even a major part of the smoothbore muskets then in use with rifled guns. It would have also meant a major change in tactics, another sore spot with military authorities, who used to like things to stay the same. If you examine the history of Patrick Ferguson, and his attempts to interest the British military in his breechloading rifles during the period of the American Revolution, you can see all sorts of stumbling blocks that the establishment put in his way. When the war department finally authorized raising a corps to use the breech loading rifle, they kept the roster to 200 men. After Ferguson's wounding at Brandywine, the corps was speedily dismantled and the men sent to other regiments.
| Christopher Gregg wrote: |
| When choosing a ball size for a smoothbore, you should pick a caliber smaller in size from your barrel bore in relation to the thickness of the patch you will be wrapping the ball in. For example, in my .62 caliber fowler I use a .60 ball, wrapped in a 1mm patch. This gives me a bit of wiggle room, and makes a plenty tight load for good pressure. A rifle bore would do the same thing, depending on the bore. Military shot was oftten looser, and may or may not have used a patch, depending on the situation. |
Chris...
That is a very tight ball and patch combo. How do you get that thing down the barrel after firing a round? In my Brown Bess I load .715 balls in a .75 bore, with a lubricated 15 thousanths cloth patch, and still find it necessary to shove the rammer pretty hard to defeat the powder fowling.
Lin, I may be off on my ball size - it's possible it's a .589 ball that I was using last year. I also grease the heck out of my bore with a spray lubricant, I call it "Pamming" my barrel! Not historical, but it makes pushing the ball home easier. It's also possible that my bore is not a true .62. Maybe it's a .63. The fellow I bought it from makes all his own parts, and didn't know the exact measurments, so I had another guy set me up with my supplies. I've only been shooting one season, and have only run a couple of dozen balls through it, but it's fun nonetheless. :)
I think I may have also misquoted my path thickness. Is ten thousandths more like it? Also, I don't get much powder fowling using triple f Goex and swabbing the barrel every few shots.
I think I may have also misquoted my path thickness. Is ten thousandths more like it? Also, I don't get much powder fowling using triple f Goex and swabbing the barrel every few shots.
| Joel Minturn wrote: |
| Hi, I was looking at the Military Heritage website and there prices look fairly reasonable. Of course the issue with them is that you would have to have the powder hole drilled out before it will shoot. Depending on what you want and other factors there are some nice kits out there as well.
As far as gun blowing up, with a modern, well made barrel it shouldn't be too much of an issue if your careful with your powder charge. Well don't go crazy with the powder loads or accidentally double charge it. I have heard of issues with old "Damascus" barrels blowing apart but those where mostly old shotguns that I have heard of. Modern barrels are very solid. And what size bullet to put in your rifle may depend on the gun. I think in my muzzle loader, some CVA model of .50 caliber, I think that it shoots a .500 in. bullet, but I wasn't shooting a round ball either. Round ball may be smaller as I do not remember what size was recommended for that gun.I may be wrong its been a while since I have played around with it. In modern guns the rounds name, ie 30-06 or .44 mag, has little to do with the actual bullet size. So in short read up on what your guns limits are and what it the appropriate loads and rounds to use and stay on the light side if your not sure. |
Drilling a touch hole in one of the Indian guns sold by Military heritage and some other companies is not a big deal if you have a small drill press. The problems arise if the barrel is not properly breeched, which sometimes occurs with these guns. Middlesex Village Trading drills them before shipment, i.e. it's his problem if the gun is not properly breeched, so I might consider that company first, all other things being equal. Not advocating one over the other, but a word to the wise should be sufficient.
Powder charge is seldom the issue when a modern muzzle loading barrel blows. It is usually caused by a defect in the barrel, i.e. a weak place, or failure to seat the bullet directly on the powder charge. A partially seated bullet or any other kind of obstruction in a muzzle loading barrel will cause pressure build up and at least create a ring in the barrel, if not total failure. Care in loading is essential. It is wise not to exceed the manufacturer's recommendation concerning load or the type of powder FFG, FFFG, etc. Never use FFFFG in the bore of any gun over .22 cal. Damascus twist barrels found on older shotguns are prone to come apart with modern loads. Have any damascus barrel carefully examined by a competent gunsmith before firing and never use anything but black powder in these guns.
Page 1 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum