MARKSMANSHIP HISTORY: AMERICAN RIFLEMEN IN THE REVOLUTION

[Cav1]

Fred & Co. do an excellent job of opening eyes and educating folks on our own American Revolution. Much better than, say, a college professor. My "American Colonial History and the Revolution" class was taught by a guy who fled our country to Red China to avoid the Vietnam draft. The total class time in the entire semester spent on those pesky actual battles and military campaigns and bloody sacrifices of the soldiers was less than a half an hour. So, as with most things, you do it yourself to really learn about something, and read (or write) books on the subject.

While locally-made American Committee of Safety muskets were generally of higher quality than the British Brown Bess, they were basically the same weapon. One British general said that the Brown Bess was good, maybe, to 100 yards, but "...a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards...as to firing at a man at 200 yards, with a common musket, you may as well just fire at the moon." Like the modern doctrine of spray-and-pray, the muskets did not lend themselves to real marksmanship.

George Washington had seen what men armed with real rifles could do in the French & Indian Wars. He set about raising companies of American riflemen with the help of his right-hand man, Major General Charles Lee. Lee reported glowingly about the frontier riflemen. "The frontier riflemen will make fine soldiers...(because of)...above all, the dexterity to which they have arrived in the use of the rifle gun. There is not one of these men who wish a distance less than 200 yards or greater object than an orange. Every shot is fatal."

The rifle in question was first known as the Pennsylvania Rifle, later to gain fame as the Kentucky Rifle. Dutch, German, and Swiss gunsmiths had settled in William Penn's Colony and, finding European weapons unsuited for use in the vast wilderness and forests of the New World, simply made rifles that were perfect for the job. Modern tests show that a quality-made .45-caliber Kentucky rifle could achieve a muzzle velocity of 2,400 feet per second and an accuracy of 2 MOA at 100 yards.

Companies of frontiersmen and "Overmountain men" armed with this fine weapon were raised. Called upon to raise a company in his neck of the woods, the state of Virginia, a man by the name of Daniel Morgan gathered 96 rifleman in 10 days and then marched the company the 500 miles to Boston in three weeks. How many of us today could march 500 miles and arrive ready to fight? Eventually, nine companies were raised, and they were all known as Morgan's Sharpshooters. By the end of the war, Colonel Morgan's brilliant yet unconventional tactics would earn praise from Prussian Frederick the Great, who called him "the finest leader of light infantry in the world."

Their battles and feats are too numerous to recount. It is of note that Morgan taught his men to "shoot for the epaulettes"; these shoulder boards marked the rank of British officers, so he meant simply "Kill the British officers first." Although the English did not consider this "cricket" or fair, it worked. Taking out the officers turned a British field army into a herd of stampeding cattle. They were so effective that the August 1775 edition of the London Chronicle advised British officers going off to serve in America to "settle their affairs in England before their departure." Make out your will and kiss mama goodbye, because you ain't coming home.

American General Benedict Arnold was one of our best generals before he lost the faith and became a traitor. At the Battle of Saratoga, no matter how many times the Americans broke the British ranks, they were rallied by the fearless and brilliant British General Simon Fraiser. Arnold pointed him out to Daniel Morgan ("That man is worth a Regiment!") and alluded to the fact it might be very helpful to the battle if Fraiser were to be disposed of. Morgan passed the word to his Sharpshooters, and one soldier named Timothy Murphy took up the challenge. Watch out for the Irish. Although he reportedly only grazed Fraiser on the first shot, Murphy's second toppled the capable British general from his horse at a range of 300 yards, helping to turn the tide of the entire battle.

In another battle, a British officer, Major George Hanger, later wrote an account about riding with Colonel (later General) Tarleton and his bugler. Hanger clearly observed a single American rifleman go prone and fire a single shot at a range of 400 yards. The rifle ball whipped right between the two mounted officers and killed the horse of the bugler.

The Pennsylvania rifles' only failings were that they could only get off two shots per minute even in the hands of a veteran, and they could not fit a bayonet. So the patriots seldom let the British regulars get close enough for a bayonet charge or, if they did, they melted away into the woods. Frontier fighters and Overmountain men proved this tactic at the Battle of King's Mountain.

Eleven hundred British and Loyalist forces held the crest of the hill under the leadership of an excellent and cool-headed commander, Major Ferguson, who knew well the value of rifles but had none of his own. Nine hundred American frontiersmen, including a fellow by the name of Crockett who would one day have a son named Davy, attacked up the hill through the woods.

The Americans charged up the hill, skirmishing from cover to cover, picking off their enemy with well-aimed rifle fire as they did so. When Major Ferguson would mount a determined bayonet charge, the patriots would flee back down the hill into the woods as the British charges petered out with no concentrated target to engage. In the shelter of the beech and hickory forest, the Americans would re-group and make another attack. Each time, there were fewer and fewer English forces to mount determined but ultimately futile bayonet charges against the elusive frontiersmen.

In the end, Major Ferguson was taken out of the saddle by an unknown rifleman. The Loyalist forces suffered 225 killed, 163 wounded, and over 700 taken prisoner. The Americans suffered 28 killed and 62 wounded. This victory became a pivotal event that broke British General Cornwallis' attempt to invade and subdue North Carolina and sent him slinking back towards Yorktown, where he was eventually to surrender.

[dwarven1]

I'm glad you posted this today, for yesterday I was reading the wikipedia.org account of Lexington & Concord, which claims that there were NO riflemen anywhere near Lexington and Concord on 4/19/1775.

The section titled "Lexington to Menotomy" reads

A few mounted militiamen on the road would dismount, fire muskets at the approaching regulars, then remount and gallop ahead to repeat the tactic. Unmounted militia would often fire from long range, in the hope of hitting somebody in the main column of soldiers on the road and surviving, since both British and colonials used muskets with an effective combat range of fifty yards. The hunting rifle of a typical American farmer was a better long range weapon than the British musket for this purpose,[5] but no direct evidence exists that rifles were present on either side in this particular battle. (All surviving weapons from the battle on both sides were smoothbore muskets.) Hitting the dispersed British flankers was difficult, however.

I was wondering if anyone knows of any contrary sources to this? (I'm well aware that wikipedia is not vetted and is maintained by whoever wants to edit an article).

[Cav1]

It is hard to say for sure about weaponry. Most "modern" historians come from liberal ivory towers and don't know their muzzle from their buttplate.

The best I have been able to gather, the opposing forces at Lexington and Concord were armed almost identically. The British Brown Bess had already been in service for over 50 years, long enough for many examples to find their way out of military service and into private hands by a variety of means. The American Committee of Safety muskets were nothing more than domestic copies of the Brown Bess.

One would think, the way of life being what it was in those days, and hunting ranging from extremely popular to fill-your-belly desperate, there must have been at least a handful of rifles amidst the Minute men. I have not yet found any documentation "proving" that, however. I am still wet behind the ears when it comes to this subject, tho I am reading away on it. Perhaps someone else has stumbled across some evidence.

Maybe the Minutemen did not have rifles, or next to none. There seems to be more mention of rifles when Morgan and his sharpshooters arrived for the Siege of Boston. Then, British officers and "other ranks" began to get picked off from long range as they worked on their fortifications and General Gage complained to London about the "terrible guns of the Rebels."

[socalserf]

Where does the story of Hezekia Wyman come from?
(my favorite "dangerous old man")

[Wayne Conrad]

"Direct evidence" is an account from someone who was there: "I fired my rifle..." or "As I stood in the doorway, I saw the men march by, some carrying rifles," or "At this site, when we dug, among the artifacts we found a rifle," etc.  Indirect evidence is a man fallen at rifle range, or many men of the time had rifles, etc.  So you know what you're looking for...

[Cav1]

I'm much more familiar with WWII history, but I'm going through the sources I have on the Revolution. The Minute Men by John R. Galvin has General Gage's own predictions from prior to the events of April 19th; he is expecting to meet some rifles and, it would seem, knew he was likely to stir up a hornet's nest. Gage's writing as quoted by Galvin:

"The most natural and most eligible mode of attack on the part of the people is that of detached parties of Bushmen who from their adriotness in the habitual use of the Firelock suppose themselves sure of their mark at a distance of 200 rods. Should hostitilies unhappily commence, the first opposition would be irregular, impetuous and incessant from the numerous Bodys that would swarm to the place of action, and all actuated by an enthuisiasm wild and ungovernable."

[Buckshot]

It is hard to say for sure about weaponry. Most "modern" historians come from liberal ivory towers and don't know their muzzle from their buttplate.

The best I have been able to gather, the opposing forces at Lexington and Concord were armed almost identically. The British Brown Bess had already been in service for over 50 years, long enough for many examples to find their way out of military service and into private hands by a variety of means. The American Committee of Safety muskets were nothing more than domestic copies of the Brown Bess.

One would think, the way of life being what it was in those days, and hunting ranging from extremely popular to fill-your-belly desperate, there must have been at least a handful of rifles amidst the Minute men. I have not yet found any documentation "proving" that, however. I am still wet behind the ears when it comes to this subject, tho I am reading away on it. Perhaps someone else has stumbled across some evidence.

Maybe the Minutemen did not have rifles, or next to none. There seems to be more mention of rifles when Morgan and his sharpshooters arrived for the Siege of Boston. Then, British officers and "other ranks" began to get picked off from long range as they worked on their fortifications and General Gage complained to London about the "terrible guns of the Rebels."

Remember that most of the men at Lexington and Concord were members of the Militia or members of the Minutemen.

Either of those organizations would have, at the very least prefered and more than likely REQUIRED a musket rather than a rifle.

While I am sure some had rifles, it would more than likely have been a second weapon and NOT the one taken to Militia muster!

Also note the names (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee) of the rifles and I think that most of them would have been found west and somewhat south of the Lexington and Concord area.

Buckshot

[Cav1]

A quote from The Rifle in the American Revolution by John W. Wright, American Historical Review:

It (the rifle) was little known in New England, and it may be said to have been confined to Pennsylvania and the colonies south, particularly to the western or border regions