"Long Rifle: The Gun That Helped America Gain" Topic

….its Independence.

"By the mid-1700's, the American long rifle had acquired an almost supernatural reputation. To the British troops who were unfortunate enough to come up against it in combat during the Revolutionary War, the rifle was more an affliction than a weapon. And the men who used it against them seemed to have a demonic talent for shooting—they never seemed to miss.

The ancestor of the weapon used during the war was brought to William Penn's colony in North America by German and Swiss immigrants. The original rifles were fairly heavy and of very large caliber, ranging from .45- to .60-caliber. As they were taken to other colonies, including the backwoods of Virginia and Kentucky, the old country rifle evolved into something lighter and smaller, between .40- and .45-caliber. This new hybrid was easier to carry in the field and used less powder than its more cumbersome ancestor…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The article is mostly long disproven mythology. The long rifle was of some use in the Revolution- notably at the battle of Saratoga. But in the end, it was not a game changer, and Washington reduced the number of rifle units over the course of the war.
Why?
They took too long to load and could not mount a bayonet.
Therefore, they were only useful for sniping. Not even for basic skirmishing before a battle.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

I would say after the first bit it presents a fairly balanced view of the long rifle.

I will always remember King's Mountain as a truly marvelous example of the value of the "Kentucky" (actually Pennsylvania) rifle. "Over the mountain" men came from what is now the southwest "tail" of Virginia and eastern Tennessee, met with Carolina volunteers, selected the best shots, and sent the newly-selected 900 (horses for only that many) on to surround a hill called King's Mountain. British Colonel Ferguson (of the breech-loading rifle fame) lead a larger number of loyalist Americans, trained in the British line-of-battle way, that was surrounded by the rebel riflemen. Truly remarkable tactics of shooting up hill, dropping the loyalist, goading them into a downhill bayonet charge. The rebels melted away, but came back as the loyalists went back up the hill and reformed. A total rebel victory won by the long rifle.
It reinvigorated the war, and tories or loyalists no longer turned out to serve the British.

GdeP

By hard experience, Washington wanted no more than 1,000 riflemen with the army at any one time.

Riflemen had to be supported by musket- and bayonet-armed regular infantry, as Morgan's Rifle Corps was by Dearborn's Light Infantry during the Saratoga campaign.

The impact of the long rifle is over-emphasized in importance during the Revolution just as it was at New Orleans in 1815.

Ferguson picked a terribly defensive position. I had two ancestors with Shelby at that battle. They were from the Over the Mountain crowd (Augusta County militia) and nothing about any special selection I'm aware of.

As far as Saratoga goes, considering Morgan's Rifles were dispersed in the opening moments of the engagement, I don't think they were all that decisive. And there's no evidence they shot Fraser. He was a mounted officer and was hit. Nothing to substantiate the Golcher story, which came out years after the battle.

"Ferguson picked a terribly defensive position."

Unaware that any enemy were near, he wasn't expecting to be attacked. Nul points

Well, there is that. So it was an even worse position that one might have figured.

The one parallel with Saratoga--he could charge and drive off the Rebels, but they would come back when his men reformed. This happened to Hamilton's brigade repeatedly during the September battle--but it was against Continentals and militia, not riflemen.