"How common was the long rifle during the AWI?" Topic

We know most milita actualy used the brown bess, but how many rifles were there? how common was it?

"We know most milita actualy used the brown bess"

We do? I believe they brought whatever they had – which was probably a lot of fowling (hunting) pieces, but many had nothing at all.

Rifles were expensive and not that common. More likley found toward the frontier. One tip is to look at where the Continental Rifle units came from.

The long Pennsylvania Rifle was developed in the mid-to-late 18th century by gunsmiths on Pennsylvania's mountain frontier for use by hunters, especially professional long hunters. The long rifle had a small caliber and was sparing of ammunition, an important feature when a hunting expedition lasted for months, deep into the wilderness, far from resupply.

The frontier of British North America at that time was generally on the Appalachian mountains, and use of the long rifle spread from Pennsylvania down through the mountain counties of Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina and west into Kentucky and Tennessee. As historygamer suggests, that is where riflemen were recruited for the Continental Army.

The long rifle was never an important military weapon, because it was expensive, delicate, clumsy, slow firing and made small holes in people. Soon after Davy Crockett took one to Texas in 1836, the long rifle was generally replaced by more modern firearms.

Although far from an expert on the AWI, I believe the long rifle played its part in picking off British officers to effect, especially at Saratoga.

I gather because it was relatively slow to load & unable to ship a bayonet, units of long rifles needed conventional musket men be stationed near to prevent them being overwhelmed.

Finally, as I run out of my limited knowledge, I think Geo. Washington was not an advocate of the weapon but had it forced onto him by Congress.

Washington was disgusted by the behavior of the rifle armed hillbillies around Boston.
He wasn't all that impressed with their performance in the field either.

The best performing rifle designs, the jaeger rifle and Ferguson's rifle, oddly enough were not all that long.

This is part of the long enduring myth that has the British marching in dense lines, foolishly wearing red, while the crafty Americans hid behind trees.
Even a cursory knowledge of the AWI pokes holes in that.
But it's still part of the American mythos, and part of the larger prejudice against a standing army. Regulars are inferior and stupid, while the rifleman in his smelly buckskins are smarter and more democratic.

My point was more the "all/most militia men used long rifles"

Which is a myth.

I also remember reading quite a few american riflemen ended on the bayonet, the british light infantry and regular infantry learned if they waited for the riflemen to fire, they would storm him and to phararpase from a book I don't remember the name of "we nailed them to the trees with our bayonets"

…how many rifles were there? how common was it?

A specific example would be the 1775 battle of Point Pleasant. An army of about 1,100 Virginia militia comprised two 'regiments' and one 'battalion' as the major formations – these were batches of six to ten companies grouped by county of origin. There were a few independent companies, including one of Bedford County (Va.) Riflemen, about 50 men. It is likely that this independent rifle company had the only long rifles in the Virginia army.

If Daniel Boone was leading 30 of his neighbors in pursuit of Indian raiders, then Boone might have the only long rifle in the armed mob, or there might be some others. On the other hand, if Boone was out on a scout with two of his long hunter friends, they might all have rifles.

The other myth is that the long rifle was more accurate because of it's long barrel. Actually the only beneficial aspect of the long, and heavy!, barrel is that the distance between the rear and the fore sight is longer making for a flatter trajectory.

The trajectory of the missle is not affected by the distance beween the sights.

Every rifleman had one. ;)

Muskets would have been much more common though.

Actually the only beneficial aspect of the long, and heavy!, barrel is that the distance between the rear and the fore sight is longer making for a flatter trajectory

I would expect the ultra-long barrel to develop a higher muzzle velocity for the bullet from the same sized powder charge as a shorter barreled weapon. Hence, again, the long rifle made more economical use of ammunition. The shorter barreled musket or rifle would waste more of its powder charge's energy on muzzle flash.

And possibly a flatter trajectory would result from the higher MV.

+1 for Major B.

Rifle balls fit tighter to the barrel, thus less of the powder gasses escape around te ball. So more efficient use of powder, and higher pressure behind the ball resulting greater muzzel velocity.

There is a point of diminishing return on powder charge beyond which excess powder exits the muzzle either unburned or still burning, contributing to muzzle blast, but not to muzzle velocity. It will not cause the barrel to burst.

Muskets do have the advantage of being quicker to load and less suceptible to powder fouling.

Musket ownership would have been common for militia duty. Rifles would have been uncommon except on the frontier.

+2 Major… The original comment on sight radius and trajectory cracked me up…

The smaller caliber rifle balls were typically tightly patched as well…

In 1778 Steuben wrote of the Continentals "muskets, carbines, fowling pieces and rifles were seen in the same company". Throw in a few blunderbusses and you probably have a good description of many militia units. Muskets might be the Brown Bess, but it might also be a locally manufactured or other imported weapon.

It probably comes as no surprise to some that I disagree with some comments about how common militia rifles were. What made the Bedford militia at Point Pleasant and Lynch's and Campbell's troops at Guilford Courthouse unusual IMO was not that they were armed with rifles. It was that the troops in these units were armed exclusively with rifles.

I dunno, Bill. Steuben was prone to hyperbole.

Formed troops in this era, even militia, were supposed to deliver volley fire. At Guilford Courthouse, the North Carolina militia were ordered to deliver two good volleys. Very difficult to carry out volley fire if part of the unit is armed with muzzle-loading rifles. All the men with smooth-bores finish loading, then have to stand around picking their noses for another minute by the clock while the six riflemen finish. "Just a few more seconds sarge, almost got it here…"

I admit that I'm guessing, I don't have an arms inventory for any actual militia companies.

I always thought that the advantage of the longer barrel was that the rifling could be gentler, reducing the chances of the ball "stripping" or failing to take the spin. Sure I read that somewhere…

Could be a complete fantasy on my part – I am no ballistics expert.

Muskets would be far more common because of their ability to fire small shot as well as ball. So much more useful for hunting.

@ Major B.; I believe you are correct concerning trajectory; can't think of the correct term for what I mean. Having used a long rifle and a short one of the same type; the long rifle was always more accurate.

It would have been nice if the adjutants had left us with records showing which militia units carried what weapons in what battles. Without this information we have to make educated guesses from what weapons were owned by militiamen generally, from what weapons were issued to militia by state or continental sources, or from other information.

@Zippy-While I suspect that weapon breakdown within a company was unusual, I can see how it could have happened. Likewise getting off two shots may not have been that difficult for rifles, considering the first shot was probably preloaded. If you believe Babits, the riflemen that were part of Morgan's third line at Cowpens managed to reload while retreating to their final defensive position.

@Spontoon, I think you could say the same thing about fowling pieces as you could about muskets, and the fowling pieces were probably cheaper.

Muskets (the exact meaning of the name) were probably rare for militia, with most who owned fire arms likely to have some sort of fowling smooth bore weapon. A musket was a military weapon and likely found in the hands of Continentalo and State regiments.

The rifles of the period were not really any longer than the military muskets, with the Long Rifles coming in what is referred to as the Golden Age – the 1790s or early 1800s – when more brass and carving inlay was used on the Pennsylvania and Kentucky Long rifles.

Having seen and handled some of the AWI period rifles, the look very different in length and detail than their later cousins. One of the best collections can be found at Rock Ford Plantation, who now owns the Kaufmann collection of AWI period rifles. Colonial Williamsburg also has an outstanding collection of all period weapons on display in the De Witt Museum.