I'm going to use this thread to describe some experiments I want to do, and hopefully get some input on research design. But first, some back story:
On the Americanlongrifles forum back in 2013, there was a lively discussion of rifle accuracy in the period (if you want to see the discussion, the thread was titled "Rifle Accuracy 1776". All was well and good until Artificer posted a quote from Colonel Hanger. Even today, Hanger has a pretty decent reputation as an observer, and his comments on the use of rifles in the American Revolutionary War (aka American War of Independence, or "AWI") form part of the backbone of scholarship of rifle use and accuracy during the war. He was also one of the best riflemen in Britain, and after the war he was one of the biggest proponents of the Brits adopting rifle regiments.
Stealing Artificer's quote or Hanger here:
“Colonel, now General Tarleton, and myself were standing a few yards out of a wood, observing the situation of a part of the enemy which we intended to attack. There was a rivulet in the enemy's front, and a mill on it, to which we stood directly with our horses fronting, observing their motions. IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE PLAIN FIELD BETWEEN US AND THE MILL, NOT SO MUCH AS A SINGLE BUSH ON IT.. Our orderly-bugle man stood behind us, about three yards, but with his horse's side to our horses' tails.
A rifleman passed over the mill-dam, evidently observing two officers, and laid himself down on his belly, for, in such positions they always lie, to take a good shot at a long distance. He took a deliberate and cool shot at my friend, at me, and the bugle-horn man.*
Now observe how well this fellow shot. It was in the month of August, and NOT A BREATH OF WIND WAS STIRRING. Colonel Tarleton's horse and mine, I am certain, were not anything like two feet apart, for we were in close consultation, how we should attack with our troops, which laid 300 yards in the wood, and could not be perceived by the enemy. A rifle-ball passed between him and me looking directly to the mill: I evidently observed the flash of the powder. I directly said to my friend, “I think we had better move or we shall have two or three of these gentlemen, amusing themselves at our expence.” The words were hardly out of my mouth, when the bugle-horn man said, “Sir, my horse is shot.” The horse staggered, fell down and died. He was shot directly behind the fore-leg, near to the heart, at least where the great blood-vessels lie, which lead to the heart. He took the saddle and bridle off, went into the wood, and got another horse. We had a number of spare horses led by negro lads.
Now, speaking of this rifleman's shooting, nothing could be better, BUT, FROM THE CLIMATE, HE HAD MUCH IN HIS FAVOUR. FIRST AT THAT TIME OF THE YEAR, THERE WAS NOT ONE BREATH OF A WIND, SECONDLY, THE ATMOSPHERE IS SO MUCH CLEARER THAN OURS, THAT HE CAN TAKE A MORE PERFECT AIM.
*I have passed several times over this ground, and ever observed it with the greatest attention, and I can positively assert that the distance he fired from, at us, was full four hundred yards.”
I kept Artifier's capitalizations there, because those are important points, but I also italicized the part that first caught my attention: that the range was "a full four hundred yards." Some quick guesstimation had me thinking the rifleman had to have been holding over by at least 40'! . . . And then I started obsessing about it.
I borrowed an original Dickert, got it back in shooting condition, and did some tests, while trying to address some of the concerns expressed earlier in the thread. I used two lots of powder (1992 Elephant and Goex from '86), lead of unknown purity, patching that "seemed right", and balls cast in an original scissors mould that was available in my garage. I worked up the load the way I usually do, and then got to work.
My "range" was a borrowed harvested-over soybean field, with nothing behind I could use for an aiming point--and I couldn't modify the sights. Each shot was out of a clean cold barrel, partly to simulate the effect of the first shot from a clean bore, and partly to eliminate fouling as a confound. I shot from a "supported offhand" position (I planted a fencepost and cut it off at a height to support my left hand) at 200 yards and a "modified prone" (laying on the side of a ditch) at 200/300/400 yards.
My target was an IPSC silhouette (or rather, a carboard copy of the outline of a silhouette--I was cheap, and stack-cut them out of scrap cardboard using my bandsaw) topped with a rather-disliked white watchcap. I counted any hit on the silhouette as a "hit". Results:
Load #1 results:
200 yard supported offhand: 15 hits
200 yard prone: 16 hits
300 yard prone: 11 hits
400 yard prone: 3 hits
Load #2 results:
200 yard supported offhand: 16 hits
200 yard prone: 19 hits
300 yard prone: 9 hits
400 yard prone: 1 hits
I later played with the same rifle and loads shooting at a target posted on the side of a soon-to-be-torn-down barn, where I could clearly see the effects of the wind on POI.
And that brings us to the present. . . .
Topic: Colonel Hanger's bugleman's horse (Read 4127 times)