Project Appleseed

Just returned from my second Appleseed shoot--got my Rifleman patch, this time! Yay! Over supper with the instructor, he suggested reading "Washington's Crossing", by David Hackett Fischer. I have just begun reading, but already I have come across something truly remarkable--nay incredible!

American riflemen loved to give demonstrations, aiming at a small mark the size of a man's eye or the tip of his nose, and hitting it repeatedly from a distance of 250 yds.

My understanding of history is that, even in the time of the American Civil War (er uh, the War of Northern Aggression) some ~100 yrs later, the state of firearm technology was still predominantly smooth bore muskets. And that, for the Civil War, the main technological advancement was the mini-ball over the musket ball. But my instructor did say that there were some rifles made, at that time, though rare. So we'll just accept that they knew how to cut rifling in a barrel in 1775. Now, depending how you interpret "the size of a man's eye", we could be talking a 1" diameter target. Or let's just say you pop the eyeball out of the socket and made it a 2" dia. "mark". If so, that means that these riflemen could shoot sub-MOA in 1775? With iron sights? I'd be proud to own that rifle, today! I'd be proud to make that shot with a modern rifle topped with modern glass, today!! I know my eyes are way past too old to test this legend, personally, but I think we need to call out MythBusters on this one!

The first rifled barrels came about in the 16th century.

In 1775, Virgina sent 6 companies of Riflemen to the siege of Boston. Here is a description of their abilities. Other companies came from PA.

Here are some period reports of these men.

From- http://www.revolutionarywararchives.org/longrifle.html


"When Cresap's company arrived at Lancaster, they put on an exhibition of marksmanship for the townspeople. An eyewitness described the performance in a letter printed in the Pennsylvania Packet of August 28th, which says in pare "On Friday evening last arrived here, on their way to the American Camp, Captain Cresap's Company of Riflemen, consisting of 130 active, brave young fellows, many of whom had been in the late expedition under Lord Dunmore against the Indians. They bear in their bodies visible marks of their prowess, and show scars and wounds... two brothers in the company took a piece of board, five inches broad and seven inches long, with a bit of white paper about the size of a dollar nailed in the center, and while one of them supported this board perpendicularly between his knees, the other at a distance of upwards of sixty yards and without any kind of a rest, shot eight bullets successively through the board, and spared his brother's thighs....the spectators, amazed at these feats, were told that there were upwards of fifty persons in the company who could do the same thing; that there was not one who could not plug 19 bullets out of 20 within an inch of the head of a ten-penny nail...."

The Loyalist Bradford brothers, Philadelphia printers, wrote the following story which appeared in the London Chronicle on August 17, 1775: "This province has raised 1,000 riflemen, the worst of whom will put a ball into a man's head at a distance of 150 or 200 yards, therefore advise your officers who shall hereafter come out to America to settle their affairs in England before their departure".

1/4 to 1/3 MOA
often they used the Ky Rifle(made in PA).
I believe it!
I have days when I hold 1MOA with my FG M1 Garand.
I stop my Math there 'cause that is the size of My round.(I stink at math)
Having said that I could not hold these men's underwear!
Also,Look up Sgt York I think he was WW1.
Remarkable,There have been excellent folks since, But aided by Tech. advancements.
Our forefathers,were intimate with their rifles everyday all day all the time and life always depended on it!

Alvin York was a Tennessean and the most decorated soldier of WWI. At the end of March every year a muzzleloader shoot is held at his farm. In general the winner of the 10 shot match (shot prone) is never farther than .3 inches from thin line X target at 60 yards.

http://www.shootingusa.com/TV_SCHEDULE/SHOW_25-04/show_25-04.html

Thank you for the correct info Mr Davis Awesome!

At the Battle of Saratoga, one of Daniel Morgan's Riflemen was called up to the line. The American general said to Timothy Murphy,"Yonder is General Simon Fraser. I have the greatest respect for that man, but he is worth a whole regiment. It is necessary that he must die."

Timothy Murphy climbed into a large oak tree for a steady rest and shot General Fraser off his horse at 275 yards.

There is much more to the story and somebody will likely add to it, but the essence is there. Welcome, b1rdd0g, to the company of Riflemen.

I'm not surprised, I built a muzzleloader a few years ago, and with my limited experience with black powder, the first 2 rounds out of the gun went through the same hole at 25 yards http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh36/Ctshooter/firstshots.jpg . I'm sure a better riflesmith then myself could do much better.

Intriguing,

All the historical documents I've read in my years say the shot was 300+,
So I double checked,...and even the the quickie internet junk, "wikipedia" has the shot at 300!

and as for "rifling".....the concept had been out before the F&I war...round 1....
See the photo of rifling being cut into a hammer welded iron barrel....still done to this day in Colonial Williamsburg gun shop.

what books did you read?...
I don't wish to come of as curt...however ....
The data is inaccurate

Pvt Doyle
Member 11th Virginia Regiment (Morgans Riflemen) morgansriflemen.com
Registered living historian with the National Parks Service
SAR  Member (Son of the American Revolution)
My family:
-Samuel Cochran Pvt 6th/SGT 7th Pennsylvania Regiment
-Patrick Shaffer Pvt 6th Pennsylvania Regiment
Both: Cumberland County Militia
Trenton,Paloi, Brandywine,Germaintown, Valley Forge


Added,
I own and shoot a .62 cal rifled musket, daily.....and I and it are on paper...regular @ 300yrds.....plenty of witness's
If fact my last shoot in Nv, I shot twice @ 300 offhand and hit a mansized target with 30 witness's, DON'T under estimate your forefathers

Jm 

as always


CT, nice shooting......first loads, did you try other combos after?...or just poa? aka Kentucky windage

We are of their Blood!

asminuteman

Thank you, That was about 6-7 years ago, I have been messing about with the rifle and am still surprised with the accuracy, I spent sometime experimenting with different size ball, different patch thickness and powder charges and have pretty much settled on a load that works well for hunting. I figured out how to make the little paper "loads" and working on the 3 shots a minute thing, much easier said then done.
Something about muzzleloaders really struck a cord with me, sort of the "purest" form of shooting because you become such a part of the rifle.

I'm hoping to get it to a KD Appleseed shoot, watching people shoot a muzzleloader for the first time is just too cool, and when they hit the target, it's even better. And who doesn't like big clouds of smoke 

Anyone near the NW part of CT that would like to try a muzzleloader feel free to contact me, I have an extra rifle and plenty of ball.

"Adventures in Odessey" just had a 3 part story on Sgt. York.  It was a great story about how he asked to be a Conscientious Objector, was denied but given time to go home to his Mouintain to pray about it and came back.  It them went on to his many amazing feats during the war.

Well worth getting if you are so inclined.

The primary weapon during the War of northern Aggression was the rifle. This, combined with the Minie Ball, and outdated military tactics is what accounted for the huge casualties in battle.

Sgt. York was WWI, not II.

There were a great many accurate rifle shooters "back in the day". There were also some fellows that knew how to spin a story, and play up the achievements of those men.

Historians call it memory creep!
I have the same thing every day that passes my own feats get more grandiose!

no, not really -

to "consistently" hold 1/2 moa ( accuracy, not just precision ) in good conditions at 250 yds with the best equipment/ optics/ handloads using the most stable possible real life position (prone/ bipod/ rear bag ) is very rare, and  in less than ideal conditions ( wind, mirage, etc. ) it is not going to happen

here is the test: in the same day on the same sheet of paper have 6 aim points of any size you choose - at 250 yds shoot 6 5 rd groups - 1 group at each aim point - from any field position using any equipment other than bench rest stands/ rifles/ bags - once the course of fire starts there are no additional sighters (kind of like real life?) - now is the center of any impact more than 5/8 of an inch from the center of it's intended aimpoint?  ----- yes of course it is

this exercise will separate fact from fantasy 

the science of why this cannot happen:  if everything else could be near perfect (which it never will be), this exercise could be realistic in a vacuum - but here in reality land, shooting is done in a fluid (air ) ---  in that 250 yds that bullet encounters billions of molecules moving fast in various directions - introducing too many variables to predict/ adjust/ control

lots of folks on the inter web  like to make claims/ argue these type points - but when offered a sizable wager to prove the claim, they tend to crawl back in their holes

10 Shots, .22LR Remington White Box Target, 200 yards, 5-12mph fishtailing wind from 4 to 8 o'clock (half value). Just under 1.5 moa with a 22 at 200 yards from sling supported prone. The next day with irons on a service rifle I shot a .75" (.75 moa) five shot group at 100 yards using sling supported prone. 

I see your point George and I don't think that there was alot of sub moa shooting at 250 yards in 1775. But I do believe that there was some.

Quote from: George63 on March 25, 2013, 02:56:56 PM
no, not really -

to "consistently" hold 1/2 moa ( accuracy, not just precision ) in good conditions at 250 yds with the best equipment/ optics/ handloads using the most stable possible real life position (prone/ bipod/ rear bag ) is very rare, and  in less than ideal conditions ( wind, mirage, etc. ) it is not going to happen

here is the test: in the same day on the same sheet of paper have 6 aim points of any size you choose - at 250 yds shoot 6 5 rd groups - 1 group at each aim point - from any field position using any equipment other than bench rest stands/ rifles/ bags - once the course of fire starts there are no additional sighters (kind of like real life?) - now is the center of any impact more than 5/8 of an inch from the center of it's intended aimpoint?  ----- yes of course it is

this exercise will separate fact from fantasy 

the science of why this cannot happen:  if everything else could be near perfect (which it never will be), this exercise could be realistic in a vacuum - but here in reality land, shooting is done in a fluid (air ) ---  in that 250 yds that bullet encounters billions of molecules moving fast in various directions - introducing too many variables to predict/ adjust/ control

lots of folks on the inter web  like to make claims/ argue these type points - but when offered a sizable wager to prove the claim, they tend to crawl back in their holes

George, I sure am glad to hear you affirm my misgivings about this remarkable claim. Mind you, my own experience with rifles is better measured with a clock than a calendar, but I've already learned enough of the vagaries of marksmanship to guess that it is extremely difficult to know exactly where your next round is going to hit: wind shifts (as you pointed out), temperature, humidity, elevation, cold barrel, hot barrel, clean barrel, dirty barrel, BP, RHR, BAL, how much you slept last night, and even your latitude. But I quoted my source in the original post; this is not random bloviation from the "inter web".
 
That said, any idea what kind of sights they used on those "Kentucky rifles"?

Hey Birddog,

I'm a bit of a skeptic in this case, too.  Out of curiosity, does Hackett-Fischer include a reference for this statement?  He often includes references for this sort of claim.  Is there anything about it in the notes?  I haven't read "Washington's Crossing" yet, so I don't have a copy of it to examine.

Thanks,

Gunman Doc

Quote from: Gunman Doc on March 26, 2013, 12:22:19 AM
Hey Birddog,

I'm a bit of a skeptic in this case, too.  Out of curiosity, does Hackett-Fischer include a reference for this statement?  He often includes references for this sort of claim.  Is there anything about it in the notes?  I haven't read "Washington's Crossing" yet, so I don't have a copy of it to examine.

Thanks,

Gunman Doc

I've got the Kindle version of "Washington's Crossing", but it does have a reference:
Johann von Bardeleben, The Diary of Lieutenant von Bardeleben, ed. Bruce E. Burgoyne (Bowie, Md., 1998), 52 (17 Aug. 1776).

Thanks, Birddog.  I went on Amazon and checked out the "look inside" feature, which lets you preview parts of the book.  I searched for American riflemen, and I found the quote and the reference.  Unfortunately, the reference isn't much help.  I can find it for sale on-line, but can't find any of the content.

History is a strange discipline.  You can find two history books, both written by respected authors, which give widely differing accounts of the same event.  Being a historian is tough.  Imagine, for example, some significant event in your life.  What if some poor historian was compelled to write about it 200 years later?  How much conflicting information would he have to sift through?  Eventually, he would have to decide on what the "truth" was.  Will he be right?  Maybe, maybe not.  But he's going with the information he's got.

I suspect that Hackett Fischer has evidence (oral history, anecdotes) that this sort of exhibition shooting occurred frequently, and that, at least occasionally, a skilled marksman could shoot that size target at that distance.  If you find enough accounts of that happening, it turns into "American riflemen loved to give demonstrations, aiming at a small mark the size of a man's eye or the tip of his nose, and hitting it repeatedly from a distance of 250 yds".

Of course, people didn't necessarily remember (or document) the times that riflemen gave demonstrations and they shot 10 inch groups at 50 yards.  So when a historian goes back and sees a few news articles or hears tales about these impressive feats, it's safe to assume that it happened, and was fairly common, because of the evidence you see.  Historians, unlike lawyers, are not concerned with the evidence you don't see.

When I first joined Project Appleseed, I looked at everything with a skeptical eye.  Some of the stories sounded "too good to be true".  I even went as far as contacting David Hackett Fischer about some of the facts in "Paul Revere's Ride".  Believe it or not, he e-mailed me back within a few hours.  He patiently explained to me that history is not subject to the same sort of proof that you find in a court of law.  In a court of law, you need to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, because someone's life is on the line.  In history, if facts point to a certain conclusion, then it is allowed for a historian to make that conclusion.  If you have an issue with that conclusion, it is not enough to point at a lack of evidence for that conclusion.  You must present evidence that negates the conclusion.

For example:  Lets say a murder occurs, and witness Y sees suspect X leaving the scene of the crime.  At the trial, the defense attorney has 30 other witnesses who say they never saw suspect X anywhere near the scene.  As far as the law goes, the jury will probably acquit suspect X, because there's reasonable evidence that he wasn't there.  From a historian's perspective, witness Y could be right.  His version of events could be true: suspect X was at the scene, and probably committed the crime.  There is nothing stopping the historian from writing this version of the story.  As long as witness Y is credible, his story is just as plausible as the alternative.  Another historian can come along and write a story about suspect X and his innocence.  Neither historian is wrong.  Unless one of them finds irrefutable proof that the others' version is impossible, both stories could be true.  It's weird, I know.  But that's the way it is.

Anyway, sorry to go off on this tangent about historical accuracy.  It's something that's been bugging me for a long time, and you were the lucky guy who opened the lid on Pandora's box.

Bottom line: Did the feats described in the book probably happen at some point?  Yes.  Did they happen as frequently and as routinely as Hackett Fischer implies?  Probably not.  I suspect that there might have been traveling roadshows, similar to Annie Oakley or Wild Bill Hickock's, where marksmen went town to town demonstrating their skills.  Does this mean that all American Riflemen had such skills?  Probably not.  Does it serve to emphasize the particular importance that Americans place on superior marksmanship?  It sure does. 

David Hackett Fischer, in my opinion, is a great historian.  He never just makes stuff up out of thin air, there's always some substance to his claims.  Can his sources always be verified to be 100% correct?  No?  But neither can any other historian's.  In 200 years, some historian will write a book about Kim Kardashian, the brilliant entrepreneur.  Would that book be wrong?  There's a lot of evidence both ways.  I guess it depends on how you look at it.

Keep looking at things with that critical eye.  I think it's the best way to learn.

At the end of the first 30 shots of the President's Rifle match at Camp Perry last year, two shooters (Tyrel Cooper of USAMU and Jared Perry) using service rifles with iron sights were tied with 300 points (a perfect score). This means that at 200 yards standing they put every shot into a 7 inch or smaller area. At 300 yards rapid fire prone they put every shot into a 7 inch or smaller area. Finally during the first tens shots of slow fire prone at 600 yards they put every shot within a 12 inch area.

This is fact. It happened. I was there. It was the first time that 2 shooters had cleaned the course during the initial 30 shots.

Does the fact that 1240 other shooters failed to shoot a perfect score mean that these two men didn't?

You can look at history in many ways, but applying averages will get you only the average. Most times we don't hear much about the average in history or shooting or leadership. We learn the extraordinary. And in learning the extraordinary we are exhorted to become extraordinary ourselves.

By the way, to be in the top 50% of shooters in the match you needed to shoot an 88% score. That's  the lowest level of the high power expert class to earn place 621 of 1242. Shooting an expert score in high power is anything but average among all shooters as a whole. But it is entirely average when it comes to shooting with the best shooters in the country.

There are extraordinary shooters out there today and there were extraordinary shooters in the past. In this topic we have seen researched history, contemporary reports from those both sympathetic and antagonistic to American Independence, modern living history and experimental archeology via the work of asminuteman, and modern shooting with iron sights. In each of these cases there is evidence to support the assertion of feats of
extraordinary marksmanship during the Revolutionary War.

The American Rifle: a Biography

http://www.amazon.com/American-Rifle-Biography-Alexander-Rose/dp/0553384384

Has several accounts with documentation of early sharp shooting.  He goes on to document the development of America's military rifles and the role of accuracy vs. fire power.

Look for it used.  I found a copy at Half Price Books for $6.00.

http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php?topic=19419.0
History section under "Daniel Morgan's Test"...Dec.18, 2010?

As I have been working on reading the entire new print archives @ Colonial Williamsburg. In order to back up other period stories/projects, found in not just history styled books,  personal written accounts, and/or Documented FACT, paintings and drawings from the period.

As I came across "snippets" pertaining to rifleman, I added to the thread above and others in order to help those not trained how to do this type of research, with historical documents. Alternatively, in plain language, folks that did not have the time to read.
In order to shed some light on how marksmanship was an integral part of daily life, for anyone living outside of a city, in that day an age.

JUDGE FOR YOURSELF, from the written record, penned by eyewitness

This not "everything, that I or you have read, over our years of study, just stuff you may not be aware (cognitive of).

Historians deal in facts,....everything must be cross-referenced, NOT an easy task! With the literacy rate of the total population in the colonies being higher than in England, one would think EVERYTHING was written down. And you would be wrong, City life; folks had easy access to writing materials, also the time to bother , BUT these folks were not the shooters of the day. Whereas country folk did not even see the need to write down mundane daily occurrences like:
-"How" and "with what" does one wipe your butt after defecating?"
-"What is the method to start a fire" "and with what items"
These chores were done without a second thought, however passed orally,
writing "stuff" down is a modern thought process.

A historian is the "keeper" of fact.....whereas in experimental archeology, one actually uses the items of the day, in various combinations, (lives it) then marries up to historical fact, in order to assist in filling in the blanks in the documented record. AND even though the two groups should work together, alas this has not always the case.

I like the "skeptic" mindset, .........do "family" facts get "sensationalized"?.....or should we say "immortalized"! I have no doubt! But ask yourself,
"Why Does the story exist?"  (fact or fiction)
a-"does the story come from many/any, other/separate sources?"
b-"is the person real"  (birth records/marriage/death/taxes/land ect)
c-"is the place real?" ( town , battle, hill, rifle ect)
d-"Do ALL items match up in the correct time period?"
I hope you catch the drift........................
NOW:
"CAN YOU replicate the deed with the same ?" (Within reasonable accommodations)
IF SO! An ounce or two of truth lies at the heart.............can you prove or disprove completely? NOPE!

With ALL this said where do we stand?...huh
I know I can do it, I know MANY others that can do it.....I am NOT the exception, especially in present company, and I do not feel the need to add my "alphabet soup" of  shooting degrees to the history junk.
I am taking up the "challenge" laid before my feet........Because I want to know! Not because of the threat.......Its been 25ih years since I was daily sub MOA (for a living). I still can ring steel @ 1k, with iron sights and I'M OLD, with failing eye sight (my opinion).

I am overjoyed to see others reading, asking questions, posing query's and testing conclusions.
A word of warning! Beware Absolutes ....... they only serve to create a rift, and never solve anything

this has been a wonderful thread........"Wohdah nah"

Quote from: asminuteman on March 26, 2013, 03:37:32 PM

http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php?topic=19419.0
History section under "Daniel Morgan's Test"...Feb 2012?

As I have been working on reading the entire new print archives @ Colonial Williamsburg. In order to back up other period stories/projects, found in not just history styled books,  personal written accounts, and/or Documented FACT, paintings and drawings from the period.

As I came across "snippets" pertaining to rifleman, I added to the thread above and others in order to help those not trained how to do this type of research, with historical documents. Alternatively, in plain language, folks that did not have the time to read.
In order to shed some light on how marksmanship was an integral part of daily life, for anyone living outside of a city, in that day an age.

JUDGE FOR YOURSELF, from the written record, penned by eyewitness

This not "everything, that I or you have read, over our years of study, just stuff you may not be aware (cognitive of).

Historians deal in facts,....everything must be cross-referenced, NOT an easy task! With the literacy rate of the total population in the colonies being higher than in England, one would think EVERYTHING was written down. And you would be wrong, City life; folks had easy access to writing materials, also the time to bother , BUT these folks were not the shooters of the day. Whereas country folk did not even see the need to write down mundane daily occurrences like:
-"How" and "with what" does one wipe your butt after defecating?"
-"What is the method to start a fire" "and with what items"
These chores were done without a second thought, however passed orally,
writing "stuff" down is a modern thought process.

A historian is the "keeper" of fact.....whereas in experimental archeology, one actually uses the items of the day, in various combinations, (lives it) then marries up to historical fact, in order to assist in filling in the blanks in the documented record. AND even though the two groups should work together, alas this has not always the case.

I like the "skeptic" mindset, .........do "family" facts get "sensationalized"?.....or should we say "immortalized"! I have no doubt! But ask yourself,
"Why Does the story exist?"  (fact or fiction)
a-"does the story come from many/any, other/separate sources?"
b-"is the person real"  (birth records/marriage/death/taxes/land ect)
c-"is the place real?" ( town , battle, hill, rifle ect)
d-"Do ALL items match up in the correct time period?"
I hope you catch the drift........................
NOW:
"CAN YOU replicate the deed with the same ?" (Within reasonable accommodations)
IF SO! An ounce or two of truth lies at the heart.............can you prove or disprove completely? NOPE!

With ALL this said where do we stand?...huh
I know I can do it, I know MANY others that can do it.....I am NOT the exception, especially in present company, and I do not feel the need to add my "alphabet soup" of  shooting degrees to the history junk.
I am taking up the "challenge" laid before my feet........Because I want to know! Not because of the threat.......Its been 25ih years since I was daily sub MOA (for a living). I still can ring steel @ 1k, with iron sights and I'M OLD, with failing eye sight (my opinion).

I am overjoyed to see others reading, asking questions, posing query's and testing conclusions.
A word of warning! Beware Absolutes ....... they only serve to create a rift, and never solve anything

this has been a wonderful thread........"Wohdah nah"

I really appreciate your reply, asminuteman! However, I received an error when I tried to follow your link:

An Error Has Occurred!
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.

Do I need to upgrade my membership, or something?

If I understand your gist, asminuteman, did you say that you intend to try to put a group of bullets in a 2" circle at 250 yards? If so, I'd like to hear the details of that experiment: what rifle, what sights, what bullets, what hold position, etc. I would find it much easier to believe someone could do this with a modern rifle and modern bullet (CJBT) than a rifled musket shooting round lead balls.

And I am still curious to learn what sights they used on the Kentucky long rifle (made in PA!;-), if you happen to know.

Bezon b1rddog,......roll with it......its shawnee, twas common place for colonials to speak several languages.

I'm sorry that you cannot follow the link, your status in the forum will be to blame.....(works great for me)
And that not a dig, I've been sitting around this campfire for quite sometime,...you'll get there......
I could cut~n~paste, a few, if that would not offend the powers to be...it is a tad redundant...

The "Challenge?"..hell yes....I don't think I can...I know in my days gone past, I could do with regularity.
And for my needs, I would enjoy to see (factual) IF indeed I still can......record it...sure why the hell not....aren't you?

A Morgans scout, in that age could repeatedly hit a fence post at 250yrd (that was the test)....granted NOT everyone hewned their posts to the same dimension.

The Morgans were notorious for burning powder.....showing off...*L*....and not just in that age!
(its a way to make extra shillings)
Part of our membership is gaged around, not just history knowledge,and the ablity to accually live as a ranger from that day..NAY....how good are you with a rifle, and not just 1 level mind you.....several... TESTS....and competition....."just how fast can you cut down a 4x fence post with a musket?"..(faster than you may think)

Haven't you taken the 10 shot challenge yet?........it always strikes me as funny folks don't try...even for chits and giggles
10 rounds, in the 4moa square, at 25m..eyes closed the whole time........(beer money dude)

Anyway, I'm open to share, discuss......arm wrestle (warning I'LL cheat).....
*tip of thee tricorn*
wohdah nah
-ken

Here's a teaser for you.....

FACTUAL, EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT....
The first level, you must pass just to get into the company, to get more training....


"He [the captain] to a board of a foot square and with chalk drew the shape of a moderate nose in the center and nailed it up to a tree at one hundred and fifty yards distance, and those who came nighest the mark with a single ball was to go [become a member of the company]. But by the first forty or fifty that fired, the nose was all blown out of the board, and by his company was up [had the full compliment of men] the board shared the same fate."
John Harrower, June 1st, 1775, an indentured servant serving as a teacher at a plantation school in VA. He describes the process for the selection of men for a rifle company from VA when too many men show up to volunteer.

And they turned folks away, because everyone was able to complete the feat!

God guided these small arms, to make their mark, for maximum effect! Hence the psychological impact had begun.

Quote from: Sly223 on March 28, 2013, 08:36:18 AM
God guided these small arms, to make their mark, for maximum effect! Hence the psychological impact had begun.

Funny you use that term! "psycholoical"

Greetings and Salutations Sly223,
thank you for your participation, not just in the thread, nay Appleseed as well

posted for those who cannot see into the other link
read the following:

"This province has raised 1,000 riflemen, the worst of whom will put a ball into a man's head at a distance of 150 or 200 yards, therefore advise your officers who shall hereafter come out to America to settle their affairs in England before their departure".

- Bradford brothers, Philadelphia printers, letter to King George, which appeared in The London Chronicle August 17, 1775

Bravado?......or a threat based in facts?

Anyway you wish to interrupt  this ad....
The ad is reality.....it happened

1874 was the first Creedmore Match.

http://www.dmatney.com/files/1874_Creedmore_Match.pdf

The Irish team was still shooting muzzleloareds!!!!!

The Bulls eye at 1000 yards was 3x3 feet 3.6 MOA.  First ring 6x6 feet for 7.2 MOA.

"Final score 931 America to 930 Ireland with one American so drunk from lunchtime champange he missed 3 shots.
Apparently, one of the members of the American team, General T. S. Dakin, had a bit too much champagne with his lunch and did very poorly at 1,000 yards. He had three (3) misses out fifteen shots at 1,000 yards. His poor performance almost cost the U.S. team the match.
Fortunately, another member of the American team, H. Fulton, a 29-year old surveyor, put on an outstanding performance to help make up for Dakin's indiscretion. Fulton scored 36 bullseyes and 9 centres in his 45 record shots -- with not a single miss. His final score, out of a possible 180 points, was 171!"

Lucky for us the Irish team's best shot crossfired on his first shot and his bullseye was scored a miss.

So a black powder rifle capable on 2.5 inches at 250 yards.

The fromtier's men of the Revolution lived by their rifles not recreation.  A miss could be the difference literally between life and death.  No hospitals nor grocery stores to save them if they missed their mark.

edit due to mis reading target size

Saturday March 30, 2013
I had limited time to prep, due to working with family on pistol course. (several ranges down)
(time enough to place target/shoot/and remove)
NO set up shots, cold, fresh out of the canvas bag....
I fired 3 shots, then glassed the target, made an adjustment (Kentucky windage) then finished with another 3 shot group. (.62)
With this info, fired the .45 cal, to see a comparison (I do not normally shoot my daughters rifle)

-Standard KD target
-300yrd (KNOWN COURSE)
-Off hand
-Two, three shot groups, .62 cal
-One, three shot group .45 cal flintlock Childs rifled musket (carbine sized)
(do we need a play by play?)

-.62 cal flintlock rifled musket
.595 cal round ball patched (ball/lead -.15 pillow ticking patch), Goex blackpowder....(do you need my load data?)
The rifle, siler lock, rose crown, swamped barrel, early Virginia style. brass FIXED sights

-.45cal flintlock rifled musket
using minet ball, Goex blackpowder, FIXED brass sights


Under 10" IF you say it's a 6 shot string!........however in reality it is two, three shot groups
Did I meet the "challenge" criteria?.....no....(not enough shots downrange)
however judge for yourself....IF more shots were needed to improve......dead is dead...a hit is a hit......

I think it would be disrespectful, to do this with a modern battle rifle....or heaven forbid a tack driver.....I do think the point has been driven home..................one can hope