Read the following article by Alexander Rose (Author of the "American Rifle") it would appear that compared to their contemporaries they were very good. Very Good. Try this link. 8)
http://www.americanrifleman.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=2455&cid=5&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=1775-text&utm_campaign=TaurusRossi
Sven
Thanks Sven...Good read. Interesting how the "poor farmers" were made out to be simple folk just by right of their occupation. Some of these writers seem to forget the immediate history predeeding the fight at Lexington/Concord and how our forefathers had to claim a land of their own from hostile indians and of course the French were stirring things up too.
I always wonder, what if the militias at the time in New England had rifled barrels instead of the smoothbore. I doubt an officer would have survived the first volley. Definately none would have made it back, Percy included.
Sparks considering the following about Bunker Hill; "...for after the battle the British noticed that among their hit officers "few had less than three or four wounds," indicating that each was the reluctant subject of several Americans' attention. Only men who could be counted on to hit their targets would be granted the leeway to aim at individuals rather than firing into the mass. Indeed, at Bunker Hill, every one of the 12 staff officers escorting the British commander Gen. Howe was either killed or wounded."
It would appear that they really didn't need rifles.
Those skeptics, so quick to demerrit our militia of that day, didn't bother to look at the modern statistics.
Last I heard it was 1 in 200,000. 1 in 50 sounds pretty dang good, doesn't it!
Granted, much of that 200,000 is used up in base of fire and covering fire manuevers surplanting artillary/morters where collateral risk is too great.
Sven,
This is good---Too good to hide on a state board. Maybe you want to repost to the history board?
Cowdog
Cowdog,
Consider it done O0
Sven
Sven: Obviously the marksmen were at Bunker Hill. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that a group of riflemen came from the south and from Pennsylvania to the fight at Bunker Hill. Bringing with them the rifled barreled firearms they were noted for.
I was under the impression that the New Englandanders had primarily smoothbore muskets. Not really known for their accuracy...which was only good to maybe 70 yds. Still...the Redcoats learned what the colonists were about !
Sparks,
To the best of my knowledge the Bunker Hill affair was essentially a Massachusetts Militia operation with perhaps some help from New Hampshire (Vermont and Maine didn't exist yet). The musket was good to about 60-70 yards with aimed fire, 100 yards massed volley fire. The point being that the "professional" soldiers of Great Britain and the Continent did not aim their muskets as evidenced by the results of the Napoleonic Wars of the early 19th century. Our guys aimed their muskets and got results that historians suggest were better than the Regulars by as little as 100% to as much as 1200%, in other words the worst case has our guys at twice as good as the Regulars and quite likely substantially better than that. I don't believe that rifles got into the act until sometime later, though they did prove very effective at the battle of Saratoga and elsewhere.
Sven
Quite possibly why the British regulars did not have the word aim in their drill. I believe "present" was used by their officers.
I can believe the colonists fire was more accurate. After all the years of fighting indians AND hunting for food just to exist. Brings about accurate fire. Then with all the drill done by the militia it seem the Crown neglected to properly train their soldiers. Bad for them...Good for us.
It was once remarked; 'It is the unlucky soldier that gets hit with aimed musket fire at 100yrds'
A reference to their inherent inaccuracy; unless, of course you're a militiaman who knows what he's about... ;)