I'll never forget as a kid getting a CVA Kentucky Rifle. Parents would not let me have a modern gun. Was fun but after 2 shots you had to stop and clean the bore with patches or you couldn't fit another ball down there.

Rifles were fine for hunters, after all the deer run away at the sound a shot. Speed reloading is not as necessary as accuracy. But the Americans in the Revolutionary War used Kentucky rifles on a use 'em if you got 'em basis. But they wanted to bring a military weapon to the battle, not a hunting rifle, not a target rifle.

 

Edited January 6, 20224 yr by Fielder

But, don't you know the colonists defeated the British by ambushing them from behind trees "Indian-style" while the dumb Redcoats and Hessians lined up and marched directly into their accurate fire from behind cover? (I think most people believe this.)

So true Tim. Behind the trees scenario happened in Ridgefield Connecticut.The Patriot movie displays this so accurately. Farmers, and  local tavern regulars fought off the redcoats supplementing the continentals.Generals David Wooster, Gold  Silliman, and famous Benedict Arnold with lower cadre flushed the redcoats out of the woods while they were heading back to Compo Beach in Westport Connecticut. Fielder, You are correct regarding the Kentucky Longrifle. Tough situation to be in.

Edited January 6, 20224 yr by Paul Deluca

I had a black powder long gun that was not rifled. It was suprisingly accurate (obviously not as much as a rifle) and for 18th century warfare I have no doubt smoothbores and line formations (not to forget the good old French column) were the way to go. By the U.S. Civil War, it took some time for tactics to catch up with technology. I saw an interesting statistic about GSW in that conflict that showed a disproportionate number of wounds to the right arm. That's what happens when you're behind low cover and using a ramrod, I suppose. (Also amazing how many times multiple cartridges were loaded without firing, and how many ramrods got launched--says a lot about the stress of those battles.)

1 hour ago, Tim_Capps said:

how many ramrods got launched

Now I wonder if any of the enemy were every injured or killed by a ramrod?

57 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Now I wonder if any of the enemy were every injured or killed by a ramrod?

Would not be a first among re-enactors.

If you accidentally fired your ramrod how would you load your next round?

Not to be flippant or anything but if you fired your ramrod on one of those big cattle spreads out west most likely Trampas would take his place.

Noel

I hate to think of being impaled by one of those long bayonets. In those days unsanitary camp life could kill more men than combat.

A belated thought. So, I suppose there are Revolutionary War re-enactors in England? Which means.... there are Brits who dress up like Continental soldiers to fight the ones dressed up as Redcoats? We have French-Indian War re-enactors, Civil War re-enacators (or did; not sure where that stands now) and even WWII re-enactors (ditto). Don't know why it never occurred to me to find the idea funny until I thought of some Yorkshireman playing at being one of George Washington's soldiers. But ti's all about history. There are two significant French forts in Southern Illinois, so we get a lot of French-Indian Wars encampments, which are a lot of fun.

On 1/7/2022 at 8:16 AM, birdguy said:

If you accidentally fired your ramrod how would you load your next round?

If you were that rattled, I doubt you'd be very combat effective anyway. There have been interesting studies about battles that show how few soldiers actually try to kill their opposites. Even during the Civil War, officers constantly yelled at their men to fire low, since, deliberately or not, the ones who had not fired their ramrods away tended to shoot over the heads of the enemy. And about those ramrods, The National Civil War Association has this rule: "No ramrods or bayonets shall be used on the battlefield. Rammers and bayonets shall be secured while on the battlefield."

5 minutes ago, Tim_Capps said:

There have been interesting studies about battles that show how few soldiers actually try to kill their opposites.

That's what I was taught during combat training when I was in the Marine Corps.  The theory being that a wounded soldier tends to have a healthy soldier stop to treat him until a corpsman can arrive.  So wounding a man instead of killing him takes TWO men out of the battle instead of just one.  I believe that was old WW2 training we had since the enemies we have today on the battlefield don't attend to the wounded until after it is over.

Of course in the heat of the battle you just fire your weapon at the enemy.  And the M-16 rifle doesn't have the accuracy of the M-1 Garand.  So that theory might not be accurate today.

Noel

 

 

14 minutes ago, birdguy said:

The theory being that a wounded soldier tends to have a healthy soldier stop to treat him until a corpsman can arrive

Yes, this has always been so. But I mean WWII studies showed that only 15-20 percent of soldiers even fired their weapons during combat. That number rose to 55 percent in Korea to 90-95 percent in Vietnam. The M-16 wasn't as accurate, but perhaps the psychological difference of "spray and pray" is a very different one from picking your target with a Garand. I think that was probably a design decision when they went to the much-maligned "Mattel" M-16, as well as throwing more rounds downrange and having effective means of replenishing ammunition. This also provides an additional explanation of the effectiveness of crew-served weapons like a machine gun. If there's even just one guy alongside you operating a weapon, you're much more likely to engage rather than not. I am grateful my military service never involved combat, and beyond the Gulf War, it gets a bit personal for me to think about.

200 years before flintlocks. Vianden Castle, Luxembourg.

flaming match close to flask of powder, so careful, careful, go by the sergeant's commands exactly!

 

 

hmm, not sure what century this represents, certainly not '14th century', is later than that...