"The Ferguson Rifle – The Advanced Revolutionary War Long" Topic

… Gun That Might Have Changed History.

"IT WAS THE rifle that could have won the American Revolution for the British. A technical marvel more than 50 years ahead of its time, this breech-loader received its baptism of fire at Brandywine Creek outside Philadelphia on Sept. 1, 1777.

Major Patrick Ferguson, the weapon's inventor, put his experimental rifle to his shoulder and centered the sights on a high-ranking American officer in buff and blue. Considered to be one of the finest marksmen in the British army, Ferguson knew it was an easy shot — the target was just over 100 yards away and he had a clear line of sight. Ferguson had no idea who the enemy officer was since the man's back was turned, but he was impressed by his enemy's height and bearing. At the last second, Ferguson lowered his weapon, deciding the business of a proper British officer was honourable combat, not assassinating opposing commanders. George Washington would live…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Mythology Alert!

In fact, the Ferguson was even slower firing than the jaegerstuetzer (maybe one round every two or three minutes) according to modern trials with both surviving examples and modern replicas. And no more accurate. And hideously expensive to manufacture (remember – no machine tools, etc. – everything made by hand).

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

What of the account of Ferguson demonstrating the rifle to senior officers with, as I recall, a higher rate of fire than one shot every two or three minutes.

Is this myth as well?

The idea that there is a huge backlog of "forgotten weapons" that could have instantly won any battle or war is a fallacy.

We have plenty of revolutionary weapons that were successfully used, from the Longbow to the MG-34, the Chassepot, the Maxim Machinegun, the 1897 75mm, the Mauser Rifle, the Colt Revolver or even the Mini้ ball.

Just look at both world wars where a huge variety of entirely new weapons was introduced and yet it didn't really make a change.

Can you imagine if the MG-34 was not adopted as standard by the German army, we would have end on end claims that it would have been the perfect weapon and Germany would have won the war.

The Ferguson was a boutique gun, expensive, fragile and not suited to the warfare of its day and the "benefits" were not as devastating as some would like to believe.

The effect of guns of warfare is often overstated. The almost miraculous effect of the rifled musket on the ACW is as enshrined in American psyche as most bible stories, it's water into wine and the rifled musket.

The Garand had zero effect on the war, individual soldiers might feel superior or more safe with a semi auto, but it didn't have any practical effects on the war.

Complaints that the M14 was to big for jungle warfare also has no bearing. If America kept the M14 instead of changing to M16, the war would have gone the same, casualties would be the same(give or take a few hundred mabye)

Guns just don't matter that much, unless we're talking huge changes or differences.
Like breechloaders vs spears or gatling guns vs spears.

Just look at both world wars where a huge variety of entirely new weapons was introduced and yet it didn't really make a change.

I would disagree. The stalemate on the Western Front in War I definitely demonstrated the effects of mass firepower between the machine gun and modern artillery. The slaughter was both immense and generally without result.

War II was the most deadly of any past war by any measure. And that wasn't 'accomplished' by longbows, black powder weapons or by throwing rocks.

In fact, the Ferguson was even slower firing than the jaegerstuetzer (maybe one round every two or three minutes) according to modern trials with both surviving examples and modern replicas. And no more accurate. And hideously expensive to manufacture (remember – no machine tools, etc. – everything made by hand).

The following, which can be found in the excellent British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 by De Witt Bailey, might be of some help and usefulness (Chapter 3, pages 35-58):

'On Saturday, April 27, there was an experiment tried at Woolwich warren before Lord Townshend and several officers, of two pieces of rifle-barrel guns and two muskets, to see which did the most execution, and carried farthest. The rifle-guns were approved of, and fired six times a minute on a new construction, and were the invention of Captain Ferguson, of the 70th Regiment'-Scots Magazine, 27 April 1776.

'Some experiments were tried at Woolwich before Lord Viscound Townshenn, Lord Amherst, Generals Harvey and Desagulier and a number of other officers with a rifle gun upon a new construction, by Capt. Ferguson of the 70th Regt.; when that gentleman under the disadvantages of a heavy rain and a high wind performed the following four things, none of which had ever before been accomplished with any other small arms. 1. He fired during 4 or 5 minutes at a target at 200 yards distance at the rate of 4 shots each minute. 2. He fired 6 shots in one minute. 3. He fired four times per minute advancing at the same time at the rate of 4 miles in the hour. 4. He poured a bottle of water into the pan and the barrel of the piece when loaded so as to wet every grain of the powder and in less than half a minute fired with her as well as ever without extracting the ball. He also hit the bulls-eye at 100 yards, lying with his back on the ground and notwithstanding the unequalness of the wind and wetness of the weather, he only missed the target three times during the course of the experiment.-the Annual Register and the Gentleman's Magazine, 1 June 1776.

'Ferguson then took a rifle himself; and of nine shots which he fired at a distance of one hundred yards, put five balles into the bulls-eye of the target, and four within as many inches of it. Three of these shots were fired as he lay on his back, the other six standing erect. Being asked how often he could load and fire in a minute, he said seven times.'-Addition to the report of 1 October 1776 by Adam Ferguson (no relation to the Captain) in 1817.

So, it appears from eyewitness accounts that the Ferguson Rifle was not slow to load and the only 'problem' with it was that it was expensive to produce.

t of the account of Ferguson demonstrating the rifle to senior officers with, as I recall, a higher rate of fire than one shot every two or three minutes.
Is this myth as well?

No-see the above posting.

However, the idea that the Ferguson Rifle could have won the war for the British if it had been produced and issued in large numbers is a fallacy.

From British Military Flintlock Rifles, page 58:

'The idea has often been put forward that had the British army been entirely armed with the Ferguson rifle it would probably have won the war. The structural weakness of the design and the properties of gunpowder as a propellant mke this virtually impossible. But in addition to these factors it would have required a complete and virtually overnight change in the thinking of British military leaders and those politicians who voted the money for military expenditure. Many thousands of men drawn from the least educated stratas of contemporary society would have had to be screened, selected, and given a lengthy training quite beyond the thinking of the time…'

When the Baker Rifle was adopted by the British Army later during the Napoleonic Wars, it was issued only to a few specialized units, such as the 95th Rifles, who were trained to use it. And it was a muzzle loader and slower to load than the standard musket, though it was equipped with a bayonet.

I have read postings on the Napoleonic forum denigrating the French for not issuing a rifle to the light infantry of the Grande Armee. The bottom line is that the single shot rifles of the period were not a panacaea nor a war-winner.

Brechtel, the Great War saw the introduction of gas warfare, tanks, aircraft, a host of new infantry weapons, new gear, new artillery and shell types and despite upping the ante month after month they were unable to force that breakthrough.

Two factors were important, new tactics and attrition.

The decisive weapon theory often hinges on the idea that a new weapon will so utterly befuddle the other side that they will be completely unable to respond. The Me 262 is a good example, they project that Allied losses would be so massive that they would drop on their knees and beg forgiveness to Hitler for causing him all that bother. Yes, losses would have gone up for a time and then they would have changed tactics and in the long run they would have introduced new aircraft that could challenge it.

Even the nuclear option at the close of WWII does not guarantee a quick victory. Dropping a bomb on London or Berlin is a huge blow, but cities had been bombarded throughout the war, following the Douet doctrine that claimed that civilians would never withstand the destruction of their cities and be too overwhelmed to continue the fight …

The only reason we see the atomic bomb as a button instantly win WWII is that Japan capitulated after two, not one, were dropped on their cities and the peace party only narrowly outmaneuvered the other and pushed the Emperor to speak on the radio for the first time. Japan only surrendered when their population was largely displaced, most of their cities had been firebombed and most of their armies and fleet were all but gone. Indeed work had started to move as much as possible underground and into the mountains to avoid nuclear devastation. Japan would have lost no matter what, but they were coming up with ways to deal with the problem, not sitting on their thumbs or panicking, even worse they were polishing their buttons and believed the Allies would come to the table utterly exhausted, ready to call it a draw in Japan's advantage and would be too glad to sign over all their colonial territories to Japan's care.

The reason WW1 on the western front was as it was, was the number of soldiers, not the weapons. With tens of millions of soldiers, they just kept extending their flank until there was no flank. It was perfectly possible to make a front with Napoleonic cannons and muskets that was impossible to attack head-on, but then you just flanked it.
They had artillery, planes, machineguns on all fronts of WW1, only on the western front did it become trench warfare.

All through the history of war, there have been positions that would be impossible to attack. Generals just didn't attack them, they just flanked them. But you can't flank something that dosn't have a flank.

I don't disagree with regard to the impossibility of flanking a front that extended "from the Channel to the Alps", but think it relevant to add that, according to one analysis, a War of Attrition was not an unanticipated consequence of this superiority of an entrenched defence against frontal assault, but was rather an accepted part of British strategy. The British Empire could ultimately provide more cannon-fodder than Germany could mobilise, and that's even without France and Tsarist Russia. Col. Bob Stewart (British Conservative MP) referred explicitly in the Westminster Parliament to this willingness to take casualties in order to wear down an enemy, I should think in 2016 for the Somme Centenary.