Macmac
Member
I am not familar with that type of gun, bit I can sure lay down and ram a load in my Bess, Nor West Gun and Ky long gun anyday.
At events with 'Senica Runs' everyone has to.
At events with 'Senica Runs' everyone has to.
1777 - what weapons would you choose to fight the redcoats?
- Thread starter goon
- Start date
- Status
TimboKhan
Member
Ahh.. the Ferguson was going to be my choice as well...
If modern weapons were allowed, I should think that one tripod mounted m60 would do excellent work on the lines.
If modern weapons were allowed, I should think that one tripod mounted m60 would do excellent work on the lines.
barneyrw
Member
To Timbokahn: <<"If modern weapons were allowed, I should think that one tripod mounted m60 would do excellent work on the lines.">>
As long as you have something else to use after the M60 jams. From what I have heard the military has a much better light machine gun now. The M60 had a lot of problems in Vietnam.
As long as you have something else to use after the M60 jams. From what I have heard the military has a much better light machine gun now. The M60 had a lot of problems in Vietnam.
The Ferguson was a rifle far in advance of the normal musket.
And I believe it was about 20 times the cost.
Not well suited to this country as the threaded plug needed the high humidity of Olde England to operate correctly.
Patrick Ferguson was able to prove the usefulness of this type of innovation and had he not been killed in Carolina, more may have been ordered. However he was killed and Howe, no friend of Ferguson, ordered the breech loaders mothballed.
Ferguson also prolonged the war by not killing Washington when he had the chance.
The whole concept of warfare was different back then. The fields the men fought in were usually some farmers land and he was paid by either or both sides for the destruction of his crops.
The rifle was not used nearly as much, nor as decisively, as Disney would have us believe.
Until Van Stueben introduced the concept of drilling and keeping ranks while under fire, the colonials were having a tough time of it.
Were it not for the frenchman DuPont coming over, the making of gunpowder would have been piecemeal at best.
And I believe it was about 20 times the cost.
Not well suited to this country as the threaded plug needed the high humidity of Olde England to operate correctly.
Patrick Ferguson was able to prove the usefulness of this type of innovation and had he not been killed in Carolina, more may have been ordered. However he was killed and Howe, no friend of Ferguson, ordered the breech loaders mothballed.
Ferguson also prolonged the war by not killing Washington when he had the chance.
The whole concept of warfare was different back then. The fields the men fought in were usually some farmers land and he was paid by either or both sides for the destruction of his crops.
The rifle was not used nearly as much, nor as decisively, as Disney would have us believe.
Until Van Stueben introduced the concept of drilling and keeping ranks while under fire, the colonials were having a tough time of it.
Were it not for the frenchman DuPont coming over, the making of gunpowder would have been piecemeal at best.
DrLaw
Member
No, it was flogging
What I was wondering about was why was it that the Brits would flog their troops if they 'aimed' the gun.
What was wrong with aiming?
The Doc is still willing to learn, but is out now awaiting a reply.
What I was wondering about was why was it that the Brits would flog their troops if they 'aimed' the gun.
What was wrong with aiming?
The Doc is still willing to learn, but is out now awaiting a reply.
I never heard that about the Brits not being allowed to actually take aim, but it would sort of stand to reason.
Anyone got a source on that?
As for the M-60, the biggest problem I can see with one is that cartridge ammunition and gas operated machine guns didn't exist yet in 1777.
Anyone got a source on that?
As for the M-60, the biggest problem I can see with one is that cartridge ammunition and gas operated machine guns didn't exist yet in 1777.
Given the amount of windage in a musket with a paper wad, aiming would have been mostly pointless anyway. The bullet tended to go in the direction of the last bounce against the bore.
As far as precision fire and the rifle, the fact that Washington never put riflemen in a position they could retreat from easily tell you something. American troops defeated British troops using European tactics taught by the likes of von Steuben, and not primarily by guerilla warfare.
As far as using 'ungentlemanly' tactics as referenced previously, and British officer would have happily explained the difference between tactics practiced on a civilized enemy as opposed to savages, just as any American could.
If you read the primary sources, rather than view the time through the lens of modern attitudes, it not all that complicated, and not inconsistent at all.
One thing you will certainly learn in going back to contemporary authors is how badly the revolution has been represented in modern popular media.
BTW, I picked the Ferguson as well. But only because the Girardoni air gun didn't appear until after the war has concluded - in the late 1780s. Comparatively quiet, no tell-tale smoke, accurate past 100 yards, lethal and with the ability to deliver 15 shots in 30 seconds - what's not to like?
Apparently Cap'ns Lewis and Clark amazed the Indians they met with tier Girardoni.
As far as precision fire and the rifle, the fact that Washington never put riflemen in a position they could retreat from easily tell you something. American troops defeated British troops using European tactics taught by the likes of von Steuben, and not primarily by guerilla warfare.
As far as using 'ungentlemanly' tactics as referenced previously, and British officer would have happily explained the difference between tactics practiced on a civilized enemy as opposed to savages, just as any American could.
If you read the primary sources, rather than view the time through the lens of modern attitudes, it not all that complicated, and not inconsistent at all.
One thing you will certainly learn in going back to contemporary authors is how badly the revolution has been represented in modern popular media.
BTW, I picked the Ferguson as well. But only because the Girardoni air gun didn't appear until after the war has concluded - in the late 1780s. Comparatively quiet, no tell-tale smoke, accurate past 100 yards, lethal and with the ability to deliver 15 shots in 30 seconds - what's not to like?
Apparently Cap'ns Lewis and Clark amazed the Indians they met with tier Girardoni.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
I'd like to be far, far away with a Penn rifle.
Macmac
Member
I don't recall which book I read that info in... About aiming.
It had other things in it like soldiers being fined for not keeping their musket bright, and having it clean on the inside, after all the musket belonged to the King.
The bright part was so it, and the bayonette could be seen from a long distance. I guess gleeming bright steel was supposed to scare the enemy.
It had other things in it like soldiers being fined for not keeping their musket bright, and having it clean on the inside, after all the musket belonged to the King.
The bright part was so it, and the bayonette could be seen from a long distance. I guess gleeming bright steel was supposed to scare the enemy.
Aiming was only one of the many things they would be flogged for. If they fail to dress properly, they were flogged too, or even beaten. Stealing rum, they would be "sent aboard a frigate", meaning they would be sent aboard a Navy warship and hung by the heels and dunked again and again until they were deemed "punished". Failure to shave also resulted in flogging.
It was tough being a regular in the King's army.
JNewell
Member
Totally agree. As someone who did living history for quite a few years, I am here to tell you that any group worth spending any time with is going to have some pretty well-researched and therefore pretty well-fixed ideas about what would and wouldn't be appropriate for the group and time period they are portraying - so find the group first, then buy the gear. You'll save a lot of money.
mr.trooper
Member
depends on your role.
We made great use of skirmishers durring that war. a loooong musket with a rifled bore would be best for that.
We made great use of skirmishers durring that war. a loooong musket with a rifled bore would be best for that.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,513
Aiming was largely discouraged as it tended to slow the rate and therefore volume of fire. Volume was desirable as it added to the "shock" effect to the enemy which rendered him more vulnerable to the finishing blow-a bayonet charge. However, when we talk about aiming, it must be qualified with when and where.
Before the Seven Years War (French & Indian War to us here in Estados Unidos), aiming was discouraged. During the war, Braddock's Defeat on the Monongahela taught the British that linear warfare was not effective against the Red Man. The latter tended to hide behind bushes, trees and rocks and would not stand in neat formations to receive a the full fury of a volley. So, the British responded by training some men to shoot at marks. Other things were done too to prepare the Redcoat for forest warfare.
By the time of the American Revolution, most of the lessons were forgotten. However, some like the grenadiers of the Royal Welch Fusiliers (23 Regiment of Foote) were practicing at marks and it served them well at Bunker Hill when one American marksman was shooting down all their officers. The marksman was shooting at all officers as they got within range. He was supplied with a fresh gun by the men behind the earthworks. Seeing how dangerous he was, one Fusilier fired back, killing him and ending his (murderous) spree.
Finally, there's talk by some of the Ferguson being their choice of gun. I like the Ferguson, but the Lorenzoni repeater is superior. The Ferguson's weakness is in the wood. So much wood is removed to accomodate that breechplug that the stock tends to break around the lock. Broken gun = nice conversation piece.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,513
I should add that the British issued 1,000 rifles during the Revolution. Two are in the collection of the Royal Armouries in Leeds, England. A privately owned one is on loan to the museum at Colonial Williamsburg. If you go to Professor Charles Thayer's website, Thayer, you can find an image of his Pattern 1776 rifle in one of his articles. Among those who received a few are the Queen's Rangers.
Duncaninfrance
Member
Pots calling the kettle black me thinks!
Not a tack I feel an American should be taking...................
You can't have individuals in a system designed for using drill moves as a weapon. It was the volley that did the damage not shooting an individual. Aiming would delay the process of volley fire. It worked well enough then and was still a major factor as late as Waterloo in 1815!
Not a tack I feel an American should be taking...................
You can't have individuals in a system designed for using drill moves as a weapon. It was the volley that did the damage not shooting an individual. Aiming would delay the process of volley fire. It worked well enough then and was still a major factor as late as Waterloo in 1815!
I can see the point about aiming slowing the volley down after the fight has already started, but why not aim for at least the first shot?
Why would you want your soldiers to waste 60% or more of the lead they're sending at the enemy whey they could just as easily put more into the ranks?
Unless the Brits assumed that their lowly commoner infantrymen were too dumb to differentiate between the two situations. But that doesn't make sense when you think about some of the other complicated things that soldiers then and now are trained to do.
So I wonder if it wasn't some sort of "gentlemanly" thing.
Also, what kind of accuracy can one expect from a Bess or Charleville if a tighter fitting patched round ball and careful aim are used?
It seems that the lack of aiming and loose fitting balls are what made the musket so innaccurate, so if you correct those things, what's to stop you from being able to at least hit something?
Why would you want your soldiers to waste 60% or more of the lead they're sending at the enemy whey they could just as easily put more into the ranks?
Unless the Brits assumed that their lowly commoner infantrymen were too dumb to differentiate between the two situations. But that doesn't make sense when you think about some of the other complicated things that soldiers then and now are trained to do.
So I wonder if it wasn't some sort of "gentlemanly" thing.
Also, what kind of accuracy can one expect from a Bess or Charleville if a tighter fitting patched round ball and careful aim are used?
It seems that the lack of aiming and loose fitting balls are what made the musket so innaccurate, so if you correct those things, what's to stop you from being able to at least hit something?
Duncaninfrance
Member
That, my friend, would NOT give you 3 rounds a minute. The whole POINT of volley fire was to place as much lead in an area at the same time AND intimidate the enemy with the noise, smoke and rapidity of the fire. The Brown Bess, as an individual weapon was not supposed to be accurate. Why do you think that inferior numbers of Redcoats were so good at their job and why do you think that only skirmishers were equipped with Baker Rifles. Their job was to eliminate Officers and NCO's thus removing control from general troops who were being subjected to volley fire.
And don't forget, the volley sights on Enfield rifles at the start of WW1.
Timthinker
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 815
I must confess that the Ferguson rifle crossed my mind as I read the first few postings in this thread. Then, I decided to do some online research, hoping that a replica Ferguson rifle existed for testing. Fortunately, some replicas of this fascinating firearm exist. The test results were not very flattering, with the Ferguson fouling after three or four shots. Still, I am impressed with this design despite its fouling problems around the breech block. Now, back to the question at hand. After careful consideration, I would select the Kentucky rifle for its accuracy. I like to hit what I target.
The discussion on 18th century infantry tactics is both interesting and germain to this discussion. I hope it continues.
Timthinker
The discussion on 18th century infantry tactics is both interesting and germain to this discussion. I hope it continues.
Timthinker
ScottG1911
Member
Well I of course would jump in my time machine and grab my AR15 and my 22
The Ferguson was written up in the American Rifleman many years ago.
The author also discovered the fouling problem.
He was participating in a match in Dearborn Michigan. The first day, bright and sunny, he had problems. The second day, overcast and rainy, no problems.
Like many things the Brits have made, they seem to depend on a bit of humidity to have them perform well.
Many of the long guns made in this country came from the gunsmith as a smooth bore rifle. They were cheaper and quicker to build. It was originally thought they were rifled and after being shot for years the rifling was worn and the bore recut. Only recently has it been determined that a very large percentage were built smooth. With a tight fitting ball and patch combination they shoot surprisingly well.
I thoroughly enjoy my long rifles, but to answer the original poster's query, the most appropriate generally used firearm would have been the musket.
Aside from the rapidity of fire, they wanted all the firearms to use the same ball.
Does anyone still belong to the Brigade of the American Revolution?
Blacksmoke
Member
That's easy, a BAR.
What do you mean John M. Browning was not yet born?
He always was and he always will be, world without end. Amen.
What do you mean John M. Browning was not yet born?
He always was and he always will be, world without end. Amen.
arcticap
Member
I choose France!
Timthinker
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2006
- Messages
- 815
Strawhat, thanks for adding the additional information from that article written several years ago. As I stated previously, I am still intrigued by the Ferguson despite its problems. It was an ingenious attempt to build a reliable breech loader.
As some of our contributors have noted, smoothbore muskets allowed a higher rate of fire than conventional rifles of that day. This firepower advantage was reflected in the infantry tactics used in the American Revolution and for decades afterwards. Still, my personal preference is for a more accurate firearm. Why? My experience has been inaccuracy is not a virtue and accuracy is not a vice. The bottom line for me is that I hate to miss a target. But I do understand the advantages muskets offered for line tactics. I hope we have some more input on this topic. It is great.
Timthinker
As some of our contributors have noted, smoothbore muskets allowed a higher rate of fire than conventional rifles of that day. This firepower advantage was reflected in the infantry tactics used in the American Revolution and for decades afterwards. Still, my personal preference is for a more accurate firearm. Why? My experience has been inaccuracy is not a virtue and accuracy is not a vice. The bottom line for me is that I hate to miss a target. But I do understand the advantages muskets offered for line tactics. I hope we have some more input on this topic. It is great.
Timthinker
Duncaninfrance said:
Understood.
But why not have that first shot be accurate?
If you can wipe out twice as many of the enemy in the first volley by using a tighter ball and aiming, then switch to ramming the balls home and firing as fast as possible, what do you lose?
It's not like you'd be reloading that way, you'd still be using regular cartridges with loose fitting balls for the speed.
Just wrap a patch around the first one and aim it at someone.
I also read the write up a few years back about the Ferguson. It is a great concept and I wonder if maybe some engineering tweeks might have worked out the issue with fouling.
I think it chould have maybe evolved to use the first metallic cartridges. Imagine using flintlock ignition only you have a cartridge with only the front open, a vent on the side, and a tab to orient the vent to the right position in the chamber.
You open the breech, pull a small plug from the vent on the cartridge that keeps the powder from falling out during transport, slide the cartridge in, close the breech, prime and fire.
But alas, it was not meant to be. Just too far ahead of it's time.
- Status
