Myth Busting: Brown Bess Musket vs American Long Rifle - Battle of Hampton

Musket Myth Busting / Battle of Hampton
Can a Brown Bess hit the broad side of a barn? Did the American long rifle win the revolution? There are many myths about firearms in the 18th century. Join the Hampton History Museum Educator Kris peters as he explores the myths and mysteries of muskets and rifles and how these weapons were used during the Battle of Hampton in 1775.
Explore more Hampton History Museum videos on our KZbin playlist: tinyurl.com/so...
To learn more about the museum's educational materials, tours and other resources, visit hampton.gov/34...
Hampton History Museum
120 Old Hampton Lane
Hampton, VA 23669
www.hamptonhistorymuseum.org
757-727-1102

[@flingmonkey5494]

You did not address a major advantage the Brown Bess had over the long rifle: Rate of fire. This is the whole reason why military guns tended to be muskets rather than rifles. A rifle gets it's accuracy because the patched ball, pressed into the barrel, is firmly gripping the inside of the barrel and the rifling. It is a tight fit. At the same time, black powder is very "fouling" to the barrel, leaving a lot of residue behind sticking to the inside of the barrel. Having wrestled with a black powder gun that I tried to load without cleaning first, with the ball jammed half way down the barrel, I can tell you with some certainty that you MUST clean out your barrel after every shot, or at worst every other shot. A rifle with a ball not firmly seated against the gunpowder is likely to explode when fired, and you don't want to be holding it next to your face. By contrast, the ball in a musket is a loose fit, it happily rattles down past the fouling in the barrel and does not care about it. You can reload and fire a musket much faster than you can reload and fire a rifle. Now, cleaning the rifle barrel need not be a lengthy process, just run a piece rag down and back on the end of your ramrod to clean out most of the fouling. You just don't want that fouling to wad up under the ball as it goes down the barrel. But the cleaning is still an extra step in the loading process. Note that this all changed when the Minnie Ball was invented and used in the American Civil war. It would drop easily down the barrel like a musket ball, but when you fired it the base would expand out and grip the rifling, making it possible to load and fire a rifle as fast as a musket. Furthermore, the conical shape took the accuracy of the bullet from three digit of feet to four. Suddenly long range sniping became possible, and scopes were invented. Look at Gettysburg's Devils Den sniping on Little Round Top. Nasty business there.

[@kenrup]

Accuracy with the .45 rifle. I'm an avid black powder shooter. I recommend you visit Friendship, Indiana during the National Muzzleloading Rifle Association's national championships. There you will see some very accurate shooting. My first impression of your 100-yard target was, "Dude, you have got to keep your eyes open."

[@homesteadknowhow]

So true.

[@bobf4765]

At least put your glasses on or use your dominate eye...

[@panchopistola8298]

Yep

[@patrickmchose7472]

And lets not forget the amount of lead between a .68 cal and a .45. Night and day if you're trying to supply an army.

[@kurtwicklund8901]

So long as both were fired by the same person in the same stance the point is made. The objective here was to test the inherent accuracy differences not to maximize the tightness of the rifle shot groups.

[@ChiGyu620]

The reason muskets were preferred at this time is because they were cheaper to produce, faster to reload, and easier to maintain. Muzzle loading rifles can be very cumbersome to reload, and the residue from the black powder can very quickly foul up the barrel to the point where the gun is completely unusable. Rifles were typically only used by small numbers of specialist skirmisher units, and the British used such units as well.

[@dwightehowell8179]

The Ferguson Rifle being the exception.

[@MultiDryder]

Not just that but the warfare at the time wasnt dependent on long rage accuracy it was dependent on closer range fighting so being able to shoot as fast and accurate as possible within the range of use

[@clintfoster1639]

Absolutely

[@jacobmccandles1767]

If you fire continuously, not letting the fouling set up, you'll get about 10-15 shots before it gets really tough. After that (at close range), you can still forgo the patch and fire like a musket.

[@FirstPennsylvaniaRegiment]

Rifles were not made to accept the bayonet. There is not defense against a musket armed enemy when your soldiers are armed with rifles.

[@PhotogNT]

The thing most people forget with regard to the accuracy of the musket is it really doesn’t matter if you miss the man you were aiming at you will hit the man next to him.

[@patfranks785]

It was nice when the enemy stood shoulder to shoulder.

[@vidard9863]

also there is a question of quality of training, and quality of marksman. there is no benefit to giving a soldier a gun more accurate than he is.

[@dunruden9720]

@@patfranks785 Which they invariably did!

[@NCLUSA]

BINGO. They used the musket like Indians used the bow at long range, they lobbed a whole bunch of rounds into the air and hoped they hit the group of enemies.

[@thomasbaagaard]

That is why the armies back then when they did similar tests usually used a target that was often 6feet tall and a number of yards wide.

[@stacyscott2720]

An important element not discussed was reloading. Smooth bores were faster to reload than rifles, especially after several shots.

[@miffedmax]

And it could take a bayonet.

[@Janetsfear]

@@miffedmax The bayonet was still the predominant source of battlefield casualties at the time.

[@nath9091]

@@Janetsfear the bayonet was not the main source of battlefield casualties. Most studies at the time of wounded indicate only around 3% were injured by bayonets with guns and artillery far more common. Accounts of battles also show battle casualties were inflicted by firearms and artillery. The bayonet was useful to charge and drive away enemies but there was rarely an actual bayonet to bayonet extended clash and if surrounded soldiers were more likely to surrender than be bayoneted.

[@peterheinrichs7634]

@@Janetsfear It's combined armes - the threat of beeing shot with close-quarters fighting. Without the guns, most casualties woldn't be caused by bayonets. It may have been swords, spears, sabers, halberds, clubs, tomahawks, etc. otherwise ;o)

[@needparalegal]

Even in modern warfare most foot soldier combat happens under 100 yards, so the musket should have been much more effective. I think the rifles got their reputation not from their effectiveness but from the type of person using the rifles being more murderous.

[@patmcbride9853]

Considering the ability to take out leadership at a distance, the rifle can have had a greater effect than it's numbers would indicate.

[@walterbailey2950]

Offset by the lower rate of fire and unsuitability of the rifle for bayonet fighting.

[@patmcbride9853]

@@walterbailey2950 You won't need a bayonet if you maintain sniping distance.

[@walterbailey2950]

@@patmcbride9853 Well then you’ll have to run and vacate the field because of the much lower rate of fire of a long rifle versus muskets loaded from paper cartridges. Even if you have a musket loaded with paper cartridges bayonet armed musketeers will often eventually get to you unless you run. And with a rifle you’ll get off only about 1/4 of the shots before they get to you. The added accuracy of the rifle was worth a lot less on an 18th century battlefield for most purposes than the rapid fire and bayonet of a musket. It’s a lot slower to load a muzzleloading rifle than it is to load a muzzleloading smoothbore with loosefitting ball and paper cartridges. You have to put aside all your experience with modern magazine fed repeating rifles to understand this. An 18th-century muzzleloading rifle has far more limitations.

[@ronfox5519]

@@walterbailey2950 Is it true that the rifle could fire more shots between cleanings?

[@walterbailey2950]

@@ronfox5519 More than a musket with a loose ball and paper cartridge? Just the opposite in my experience actually loading and firing both types of weapon. With a tight fitting rifle ball especially, the more fouling the harder it is to load. The rifle patch grease never helped me that much compared to using a ball that was a lot smaller in diameter relative to the bore of a musket.

[@donscheid97]

Yes, I did learn something. Thank you. Just a note; when I hunted with black powder, it took some trial and error with the ball, patch and powder, but I was able to achieve at 100 yards, the same level of accuracy you did at 50 with the rifle. But it started dropping enough after 120 yards that I never tried to hunt beyond that. Battlefields are a different matter, though.

[@waltermachnicz5490]

Note please buffalo hunters using rests would drop buffalo at extreme ranges. Experience could produce amazing shots. I had several reproduction long rifles, they were very easy to shoot well. Muskets (I have not owned any) and most "" Regulars" would have shot very few rounds. No rear sight, heavy recoil, inexperience, and less then "standardized" musket balls. No there were not a lot of long rifles. But they were in the hands of experienced shooters. They did historically take out officers and noncoms.

[@theimmortal4718]

With muzzle loaders, the amount of precision and care that went into loading and the quality of the sights matter a lot. The quickest way to reload is also the least accurate method

[@peterheinrichs7634]

@@waltermachnicz5490 You said the same as the historian did and as Mr. Hetterscheid did - there's a big difference in accuracy between muskets and rifles. You and Mr. Hetterscheid said also, rifles are even better than shown in the video. But, what's the point? Better shooters get better results? That's true - for both kind of guns. If you want to compare the guns only, you have to mechanize the shooting to perfect circumstances. Is this the point, the video was about? The historian said: common guy with some experience in shooting both guns, standing, at common ranges at the battles of Independent War. He said also: Accuracy didn't matter, because both sides shot mainly with muskets, at distances with insignificant differences in accuracy between muskets and rifles. So, yes, there are a lot of legends about american sharp shooting. But for the reasons shown in the videos, they had no significant impact to the result of the Independent War. You'd have won the war even without being awesome shooters. ;o) Comparing buffalo hunters to regulars of the Independant War is complete nonsense. Sorry for mentioning it... There are more than 75 years between!!! The same time period like WWII and Afghanistan. If you're interresseted in weapon development from 1775 to 1850, rather 1870s or later, I recommend the YT channel of Forgotten Weapons with Ian McCollum.

[@KathrynLiz1]

Yes... past 100 yards the distance must be known accurately. Those round balls shed velocity fast and the trajectory is like a rainbow down range. If the rage IS known, then hits out to a quarter mile are quite do-able in flat calm, fine weather.

[@ruiseartalcorn]

This is very interesting. Many thanks :)

[@jeffarmstrong9324]

Fouling of the rifled barrel limited the speed in which it can be loaded and fired in a combat situation. Washington understood that and never wavered when it came to arming his Continentals. A smoothbore in the right hands can be extremely lethal and reliable. The woodsman that brought their personal rifles into the fray were deadly but on their own to feed them since calibers varied man to man. Many would cast balls in camp at night with lead retrieved from previous action. Standardized musket balls were much easier to equip the regulars and keep them fighting.

[@barbarahunter5463]

Fouling also limited the speed that a smooth bore musket could be fired. Sometimes smooth bores had to be cleaned in as few as 3 shots

[@phinhager6509]

@@barbarahunter5463 True, but it was less of an issue than with the rifles.

[@josephwalukonis9934]

Smoothbores of the period do not foul after 3 shots. British muskets had a bore of .753 and archeological finds show that they used balls of .685 on average. The problem is that modern shooters try to use too large a ball.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

People forget that a rifle can be fired "musket style" at close range by simply not patching the ball. You'll get 10 to 15 rounds before it becomes terrible to load.

[@josephwalukonis9934]

​Yes, and then you lose the accuracy that the rifle is meant to achieve. Also, without a bayonet rifleman did not want to get too close.

[@garycornelisse9228]

A good presentation. Realistic.

[@realherbalism1017]

The last two targets were not shot at the same range. The musket at 75 yards which scored 2 out of 5 on the 12" target & the long rifle which was shot at 100 yards which scored 5 out of 5 on the 12 inch target. This means at 75 yards, even though the British would have technically been in range, their shots would have missed 3 times out of 5 compared to the Americans missing 0 times out of 5. That's very significant.

[@kirgan1000]

You are shooting at a "wall" of line infantery, so even if you miss your target, you can hit sombady. A musket is easyer to load then a rifle. How long time will you see before the target and yourself is coverd in gunsmoke, and you are froce to shoot in the general direction? Hence Musket is superior in line a infantery battel, and rifle is superior in a smale scale skirmishes.

[@realherbalism1017]

@@kirgan1000 rifles are superior period because the time it takes to load a rifle isn't that much longer. Also you are correct that it's a wall of people you're firing at but that doesn't guarantee you'll hit someone. After all there is also space between men. I grant you that the hit ratio will be higher but the rifle will still hit more often than the musket.

[@kirgan1000]

@@realherbalism1017 Have you try to hammer down a bullet in a rifle compare to drop a ball into a smoothbore? Now try to do it then the wepon is fouled. Now imagen to do all this under fire, and then aim through the haze of gunpowder smoke. What will you do if the line infantery is so unsportsmanlike and advance to effective musket range? Fall back? Then you abandon the postion, you allow the line infantery to take ground. Hence skirmish was very effective BEFORE the main engagement, but quite pointless after the main batteline joined.

[@realherbalism1017]

@@kirgan1000 I understand that the musket is faster but your talking seconds. I also realize that seconds can make a difference. I disagree with your premise that the musket is better than the rifle at 75 yards & greater because at that range the musket hit a 12" target 2 out of 5 times while the rifle hit 5 out of 5. In other words the musket had a 20% hit ratio compared to the rifles 100% hit ratio. I also understand that it makes it easier to hit at least someone when you're lined up in a row even with a 20% hit rate. So let's say that the hit ratio goes up to 50% for the musket because men are in lines. The rifle still hits 100% of the time which is twice as many casualties with each volley. At a minimum it's an even match at about 50 yards with a clear advantage for the rifle at 75 yards & beyond.

[@wendyandwalter40]

I would also add that the time frame in which the rifle had the most impact would be the first few minutes, when your opponent is still 200-300 yds away. On one side, a significant portion of the soldiers can fire and have a good chance of hitting a man size target. On the other, any shots taken are essentially wasted because of the range. Essentially you're giving one side an extra volley of fire at the beginning of the battle. How effective would this be in battles that generally lasted only a few volleys?

[@jrpeet]

Great presentation. Loved it

[@chuckvt5196]

A somewhat equalizer was that the musket could be loaded and shot faster, therefore giving more shots per minute than a rifle. Great video!

[@aquila8553]

Good answer! I didn’t even think about that. I shoot black powder guns and rifling definitely clogs the barrel. I came to appreciate just how accurate a smooth bore can be. I made an amazing shot at 100 yards with a reproduction 1761 French Dragoon pistol.

[@chuckvt5196]

@@aquila8553 Wow, that's a great shot!

[@aquila8553]

@@chuckvt5196 Thanks, but definitely more luck than skill. The target was a 2’X2’ plywood board 1/2 “ thick. Looked postage stamp size from my distance. No way did I think I could hit it. I elevated the barrel quite a bit, more like an artillery cannon than a pistol. I fired, lowered the pistol and turned when I heard a weird “thunk” sound. That 1 oz 62 cal lead ball went clean through. That shit can kill you! was my reaction.

[@chuckvt5196]

@@aquila8553 For sure. Deader than a dry mackerel!

[@williamdaniels6943]

it was only an equalizer on an open field. in the battle of kings mountian the british balls were falling out of there muskets. because they couldnt shoot downhill. i think they are leaving way to much history out to make broad statements like that. this is an example of too much intelligence changing the true story.

[@brettmarshall5895]

Very cool!!! Great information!

[@Losantiville]

I would argue the quality difference between a modern Brown Bess reproduction and period Brown Bess are significant. The same for the round balls, The same for for powder. Period accounts regularly point out a significant difference in accuracy between the arms even at shorter ranges. The difference of rates of fire always go to the musket.

[@williamdaniels6943]

very true! the brown bess was very inaccurate even at close range!

[@ronfox5519]

The powder of that day must have much less consistent than what they had even in the civil war. Especially in the weather.

[@jayostrem6214]

Excellent.

[@robertbrowning7556]

Nice video and history. There are a couple of points I would contend with, details wise. As already mentioned by Mike in his post, our rifles did give an edge to the sharpshooters on our side. That being said, some of the British sharpshooters used a Ferguson (very few), a Jager or a Pattern 1776 based on the Jager, and slightly more accurate than the Long Rifle. Just not as numerous. Other details, and yes your excellent video did spawn this discussion in my house hold, included arguments on the role of tactics, with some but not all American troops adapting Indian fighting styles, and the fact that Brown Bess was so much easier to load and fire, versus the slower but more accurate long rifle. British logistics did have some things coming from England, but there was also a substantial supply from Canada and Americans that took the British side. I might add that almost half of the powder and cannon were captured from the British since we did not actually have a lot of cannon casting at the time. All these points seem to balance out, so I think, IMO, that tactics and some logistics play a significant role in our eventual victory. All in all, considering the British Army and Navy were the best in the world at the time, the fact we won is amazing. Loved your description of the battle of Hampton! Did not know any of that. Thank you for your video and looking forward to the next one.

[@noreply-7069]

The aid Americans got mainly from the French and to a lesser extent the Dutch and Spanish helped them immensely against Great Britain. The French navy harassing British ships and supplies to the Americans were very important.

[@josephwalukonis9934]

British navy - yes, best in the world. British army - no. Because of the navy the army got a lot less funding and manpower. While there were some very good individual units the British army was just too small to operate on its own. The armies of the major European powers were just so much larger. In both the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars the British could only operate in concert with other powers - Hanover, Hesse, Brunswick, and Prussia in the SYW, with Spain and Portugal in the Peninsula, and with Hanoverians, Brunswickers, Dutch-Belgians, Prussians etc in the Waterloo campaign.

[@ypaulbrown]

well done, Cheers, Paul

[@davidparadis490]

The Springfield Armory Museum in Springfield, Massachusetts has original Revolutionary War rifles in mint, unused condition still in the original crates on display...absolutely amazing.

[@jumpmasterjm]

Been there. I highly recommend it too. BTW, I'm the proud owner of one of their Garands. :)

[@ianbarbarafry575]

Very interesting, thank you.

[@kodiakkeith]

You forget that while the rifle was quite accurate out to much longer ranges, you didn't have the flip up or notched up rear sights that appeared later for 200, 300 yards, etc. The rifled was zeroed at one range, usually 100 long paces and the maker banged the sights right and left until the windage was correct, then slowly filed the extra long front sight down until the elevation was correct for the desired range. What that meant was that the owner of that particular rifle had no mechanical means to make say, a 250 yard shot. His windage was good (if there was no wind to drift the ball), but how high to hold was just a guess. Also, this was the wooded east, so few people practiced at long range because you could rarely see that far. Powder, ball, flints were all imported and taxed, too expensive to shoot for practice at unlikely long ranges. You took a guess, held high and shot. So, while there are records of Colonel "Smith" shot off his horse at long range, there were probably two dozen other Colonels shot at and missed for every unfortunate Colonel Smith.

[@j.hunter5007]

Military muskets had one huge advantage over rifles carried by Americans - they came with a bayonet. Typical tactics were to a few rounds with the musket, then charge with the muskets being used as a spear. The British army (especially the Hessian troops) were deadly with this tactic. This is why Washington preferred troops with muskets for battle.

[@grumpyboomer61]

Good talk. During this period in history, the musket was the superior military arm. Simple, easier to mass produce, and less susceptible to fouling, they were well suited for the purpose. The rifle, with it's superior accuracy potential at longer ranges, would have excelled in the role of a designated marksman's weapon. Targeting artillery crews and the enemy leadership would undoubtedly have an impact on a given battle. I don't know if this was done on a significant scale at the time, but I'm sure it would have occurred to someone.

[@bobgordon1754]

It was given credit for turning the tide of at least one major battle by taking out the British commanding general.

[@metacomfortable]

It was in fact very common, when talking about the impact of the rifle it isn’t so much it’s precision as it’s function. The rifle gave the Americans the ability to reach out and touch British officers with its superior accuracy. The Continental Army was able to used this ability to great effect by placing marksman in trees. The traitor Benedict Cumberbatch was able to use this tactic to great affect while he was still fighting for colonial forces.

[@grumpyboomer61]

@@metacomfortable Cumberbatch? You have to love the choices our devices make.

[@teamcybr8375]

It was done! One thing the British complained about during the revolution was that they were losing a staggering number of officers compared to what they were used to in musket-v-musket warfare!

[@Rattletrap-xs8il]

the other things folks don't consider, getting hit with a bullet that size had ramifications back in that time. If you got hit from the hand to the shoulder you had a very good chance of losing the arm and/or getting tetanus and dying. Same for your leg. Bullet wounds then had a chance to be FAR more grievous then than now particularly because of limits of medical treatment.

[@davidparadis490]

They were mostly .45-.60 caliber rounds...when bone is hit by this size round, it will take 1-2 inches of bone out...they had no choice but to try and amputate...this held true all the way through the Civil War also.

[@robjmck]

Infection was the biggest factor as cloth and dirt entered the wound causing massive infection and deaths!

[@Rattletrap-xs8il]

@@robjmck Right. My point exactly. A huge dirty lead ball, in filthy conditions, with primitive medial aid. You could get hit anywhere and could easily be a death sentence.

[@walterbailey2950]

It’s a much bigger projectile. But it’s also traveling at quite a bit lower velocity than modern rifle bullets. So, while it may plow straight through everything in its path smashing bone and causing considerable damage along the way, it’s a lot less likely to turn around in all different directions causing hydraulic effects the way say an AR 15 round would.

[@lostwizardcat9910]

@@walterbailey2950 its also a soft lead ball which is far more dangerous than a fast moving copper jacketed round. id rather be shot with a 5.56/.223 over a musket any day.

[@varazkhartoum]

Very, very interesting!! Thank you and I hope to see more videos!

[@lowtech67]

Good video. Only real critique I have is if you're going to say its accurate at 100yds, show the targets at 100yds. From what was shown? I'd argue the smooth-bore is not accurate at 100yds. That extra 25yds will make a huge difference looking at the 50yd to 75yd targets. Thank you for the video! I learned something.

[@dominicgo477]

Great stuff

[@rcsteele]

The British had riflemen in their brigades too. Many came from Germany. In my home town in Germany there used to be a painting showing a local Jaeger that was captioned something like. “In Remembrance of our soldiers that fought in America”. None of them came back..The jaegers were recruited from foresters and hunters that often worked for the local principality. In my case it was Hesse-Hanau

[@kennethbriner5390]

At least one came back. Capt. Johann Ewald wrote a book about huis experiences in America call "A Diary of the American War". An excellent book on the use of the rifle and irregular warfare in the American Resolution..

[@ClayinSWVA]

It's not that they all died. A bunch of them became landowners in Colonies and didn't want to come back.

[@rcsteele]

Yes Just not the ones from my home town. Some did. Particularly officers like Ewald…good read actually. Some stayed and probably went to Ontario with other loyalists…some probably stayed in the new USA

[@rogerclark9285]

@@rcsteele Many did, my ggggrandfather among them. He deserted after Brandywine Creek.

[@OverOnTheWildSide]

That was VERY interesting, thank you

[@DarrenMalin]

as a brit I have to say this is a balanced and fair assessment , thank you Sir :) I respectfully suggest what tipped the balance is the war was the French.

[@josephwalukonis9934]

Yes, I concur. The French and Spanish support kept the Americans going. By 1780 the colonies were broke and if it wasn't for the financial aid provided by the French and physically transported by the Spanish from their gold reserves in Cuba and given to the Americans the revolution would have likely failed that year.

[@thedamnyankee1]

What tipped the balance in our favor was the fact that the french were capable of attacking in India, and in the Caribbean, and the spanish were dead set on getting Gibraltar. Suddenly table stakes for the war wasn't worth it for a few million people who were actually costing money.

[@billycaspersghost7528]

The muskets advantage was its speed of loading and simplicity under battle conditions. The rifle is much slower under the safety of test conditions ,that will get worse as you try to use a patch then hammer the ball slowly down the barrel against the rifling , whilst facing 1000 maniacs with muskets.

[@KathrynLiz1]

With the right sized balls and patch material, one does not "hammer the ball down the barrel" at all. It's not difficult to push it down with the ramrod. Fouling can be an issue, but with the right lubricant on the patches this is minimised so that even after 15 or 20 rounds loading is still quite easy. Yes it's slower than a smooth bore, especially with the loose fits of the projectiles used by the military muskets, but three rounds a minute is still possible, although two is more likely while three is easy with a musket and four is possible.

[@billycaspersghost7528]

@@KathrynLiz1 Like I said ,try doing that on a battlefield with the Redcoats bearing down . Fitting a patch and lubricating might be easy shooting turkeys but a battlefield is a different thing Not until the Rifle musket and the Minie ball did the rifle become the preferred weapon. As to "hammering" ,well I think a hammer was part of the kit initially issued with the Baker rifle given to the Rifle Regiments. Dropped later though. Musket firepower far exceeded the rifle ,in practice, which is why it was the weapon of choice for all armies of this period, including the Continental Army. The broad tenet of this clip is correct ,the rifle has become a legendary symbol of the War of Independence but the reality is different.

[@jacobackley502]

@@billycaspersghost7528 you don't fit patches and lubricate them when loading the rifle. That's a step done when filling a cartridge box. The loading procedure is the same in the actual fight. Fat on the patch keeps fouling soft, and the tighter fitting balls wipe the bore down with each subsequent shot. I have sat and fired over a hundred rounds through a 50 cal muzzleloader in a single sitting without any added resistance from fouling with this method.

[@billycaspersghost7528]

@@jacobackley502 Guess all those armies were wrong then. Also when you "sat" and fired all those over a hundred rounds ,was anyone trying to rip you open with a bayonet or club your brains out with the stock. The process might be the same ,but the ability to carry it out not so much. Did you feel the fear and rising hysteria as the Militias did ,who time and again broke. This video was about the reality of the WoI not the rifle myth that has grown out of proportion.

[@jacobackley502]

@@billycaspersghost7528 it's not that they were wrong, it's a huge logistical addition to go from paper cartridges with 69 cal balls in 75 cal barrels over to fitting balls and greased patches. A paper cartridge will last indefinitely if kept dry, a greased patch cartridge can leak into its own powder and degrade itself. Not to mention the difference in tolerance required for the manufacture of balls and barrels. If you get a 70 or 68 cal ball cartridge in a brown bess, you're still well in the clear. If you get a 46 cal ball in a 45 cal rifle, the ball isn't going down the bore without a mallet. Not even mentioning costs, which is another whole conversation. The firing rate is not the reason why muskets remained in service for so long. Up until the minie ball, you simply couldn't field rifles in major numbers. There's just too many hurdles and so little gain. The firing rate thing is a modern myth from people who dip their tow into the water of the muzzleloading world. People get a cheap muzzleloader, try to ram dry paper and balls down the bore and say "wow this is so hard, no wonder smoothbores stuck around!"

[@YeshuaT-bm6ss]

I understand that there is a big difference in the 2 but for me having the smooth bore flintlock is It can be loaded with different types of shot it makes a great survival gun that's just my opinion

[@colinmoore7460]

It also has to be said that a man defending his home has a greater reason to fight harder, plus his local knowledge is going to play a part.

[@daveyjoweaver6282]

Thanks Kindly, I’ve learned much and you’ve cleared up some of those myths. And a Very Happy New Year! DaveyJO in Pennsylvania

[@timpotter2956]

The targets were fired off-hand (standing), the least steady of the shooting positions. The Brits noticed that many of our rifleman laid down to steady their (fired from prone), thereby increasing their accuracy. Also, we do not know about the capability of the person firing the rifle during the test. Also, a test for the musket should have been conducted at various ranges using the load of one musket ball and three buckshot. The buck-and-and-ball load (for muskets) is what Washington preferred for the Continental Army, and we used extensively at Monmouth Court House (1778), the point where the U.S. Army was starting to achieve parity with the British regulars in terms of combat efficiency. The rifle, on the other hand did play any important role in eliminating quite a few British officers, impeding the enemy's command and control capabilities. At Saratoga, American rifleman Tim Murphy shot and killed British General Simon Fraser at long range, throwing the British into confusion during at a key point in this very important battle. T.P. BA - History Veteran - U.S. Army

[@feltonmclaughlin3529]

So true! As best I can tell the first time that Riflemen were used in significant numbers was Saratoga. Morgan's Rifle Corps numbered approximately 900 men armed with rifles the other was at King's Mountain where the American force was armed almost completely with rifles and the British/Tory force had a significant number of rifles. As you said the riflemen were very good at disrupting the Command and Control element by removing officers. No where was this more apparent than at Cowpens when Morgan used about 18 to 22 riflemen (depending on the source) to disrupt the cohesiveness as well as command and control of the approaching British before the first line fired a volley.

[@henrik2518]

There is no proof whatsoever that it was Tim Murphy that shot Fraser. This claim seem to have started with an alleged interview of a son of Murphy by Jeptha R Simms in preparation of Simm's book "History of Schoharie County and Border Wars of New York" (I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the Revolutionary war) decades after the events.

[@brenttaylor7856]

One of my favorite anecdotes from the revolutionary war is the sign posted on the loading docks in Liverpool informing British officers to settle all financial issues before boarding for America, it seems the American riflemen had a real taste for picking off the officers

[@josephwalukonis9934]

The Timothy Murphy story cannot be verified as there are no period references to him being the one who killed Fraser. The first mention of Murphy doing this comes from a 19th century source.

[@rexbarron4873]

This should be required watching...well done excellent presentation.

[@jonathanholland8133]

Great video! The only significant battle that comes to mind where the American force was completely armed with rifles, and where the exclusively used "indian" style tactics, was Kings Mountain SC. But this force was also a one off force that came together only for this one battle and was comprised completely of frontiersmen from the NC/SC back country and their fellows from over the mountains in what would become TN.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thank you. And you are absolutely correct, King's Mountain has come up a few times in the comments on this video but I would definitely argue that its the exception that proves the rule. Rifles played a roll but they didn't win the war.

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

Daniel Morgan's riflemen played a significant role in the battle of Freeman's farm.

[@dwightehowell8179]

According to what I have read the British and American Colonial forces loaded their muskets with buck and ball. One ball and two buck shoot. Other loads were used by others.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for joining the conversation. Both the American and British forces did use "buck and ball" loads at times, but the standard cartridge for both the Brown Bess and the Charleville muskets consisted of a single round lead ball wrapped in paper with the black powder. This was the standard military load across Europe at the time and was designed for ease of production and speed of loading on the battlefield. "Buck and ball" cartridges are more complicated to put together and therefore take longer to produce. They are also longer, heavier, and would have been a little more fragile than a standard cartridge. So although both sides did use "buck and ball" loads at times most muskets during the war would have been loaded with a single round lead ball.

[@couespursuit7350]

I generally agree with your premise that a smooth bore can be accurate enough at 75 yards to hit an apposing soldier. Problem is the musket has no rear sight to line up with the little nob of a front sight. Without he rear sight or at least each soldier figuring out what the front sight picture should look like for his individual musket as he aims its hard to be accurate. The rifle accuracy you displayed is a horrid example of what is possible and would be an embarrassment to any rifleman of the time. With a proper thickness greased patch the rifle should hit within the red circle at 50 yards and stay inside the first gray circle around the red at 100 yards. If a rifleman kept some precut and pre greased patches then you can shoot shot after shot without a fowling issue if you wet the patch in your mouth with some spit. The moistened/greased patch glides over the fouling from before and loosens it up enough so it is flushed out with the next shot. This works if you are shooting shot after shot and needs a canteen at your side to keep your mouth from drying out.

[@KathrynLiz1]

Yes a well run flintlock rifle of 45-50 calibre will shoot to 3-4 minutes of angle, sometimes a bit less.....off a rest of course. That's an 8" group at 200 yards...some as small as 5" in calm weather and good sights. Muzzle velocities should be in the 1600-2000fps range depending on charge and barrel length, which gives a flat enough trajectory to reliably hit people at 200+ yards. If the range is known with great accuracy (within 10-15 yards or so) and the shooter knows his trajectory really well, much longer ranges are possible, but with 50 calibre round balls they are going pretty slow past 300 yards because their BC is pretty awful.

[@williamdaniels6943]

finally a true rifled muzzle loader shooter. those colonists could bark squirrels with those rifles. they were by and large very good shots.

[@Terry-hh3sx]

The comments are all very interesting. So whether pro or con the discussion of history and small arms is fascinating.

[@johntillman6068]

Riflemen did greatly contribute to American victory. Daniel Morgan's riflemen were instrumental in winning the Battle of Saratoga, which won independence for the northern states, less occupied NYC. With Morgan in overall command at Cowpens, using Nathaneal Greene's tactics, riflemen were again vital winning the battle which led to the British Army's evacuating the South.

[@acem82]

Yes, and targeting officers during Saratoga (and other battles) has a large affect on the outcome of the battle (there are accounts that this is precisely what groups of riflemen were doing). Shooting one random redcoat? Not a big deal. Shooting a Captain or Major? Huge deal.

[@panchopistola8298]

Yep; I don’t agree with his hypothesis at all .

[@jamesellsworth9673]

Arguably, different battles were won in different ways. Saratoga was one example. The ability of the French fleet to cut off British reinforcements at Yorktown is another example. Both victories had major impacts on the way the 'world' viewed our Revolution. Saratoga was important in convincing the French that we were worth supporting. Yorktown surrendered a British Army to our American Colonial forces.

[@johntillman6068]

@@jamesellsworth9673 Without Morgan's riflemen at Saratoga, no US victory and no French intervention. Without Morgan's militia riflemen at Cowpens, no retreat by Cornwallis to Yorktown. Riflemen were key in winning US independence.

[@reamrkj1125]

The Battle of Kings mountain which helped setup Cowpens was mostly rifles vs smooth bores. The overmountainmen dominated the British and loyalists militias. These were men who hunted with those rifles to feed their families... In accounts I've read they just stood out of range and kept firing. It's a very underrated battle in terms of importance, but not a "normal battle for that time" and not fought by regulars on both sides.

[@dat2ra]

Really well documented and clearly delivered. Excellent. Thank you.

[@darrenyoung001]

The English were fighting the French at the same time...one was 22 miles away..one was 3000 miles away...guess which was a more important enemy. British infantry usually fired in volley,ranks. Good video.

[@davewolfy2906]

More of a name to be made fighting the French. Arguably, lesser calibre officers went to the colonies - wherever they were.

[@daveharrison4697]

@@davewolfy2906 All reasonable points but all inconsequential compared to Britain fighting a war of existential survival against France where everything would be sacrificed to ensure we were not crushed. And the rebellion came about because a bunch of rich people wanted to dodge tax for their own security and defence... ;)

[@batteredwarrior]

English/British are not interchangeable. These were British forces, some of whom were English.

[@stephenjones6500]

@@batteredwarrior At the time the British army were fighting British residents of the colony's America didn't exist until after the war of independence. .

[@artawhirler]

Excellent video! Very clear explanation!

[@mikeblair2594]

I hunt deer and elk with a 24 bore New England fowler that I built. The ranges are about 150 yards maximum because I hunt in the Oregon coast range and it's just damn thick in there. I've been building long rifles, fowlers and flintlock pistols for some time now and I noticed that the patch box is flat. It should be slightly convex as its supposed to flow with the buttstock. That's the thing about the firearms of that era, its all about the flowing of the eye. From the lock forward, from the lock rearward and vertically. Not to mention that the lock looks like a Siler lock trying to look English. The problem with that is the original patch box that was copied for your gun was a German style lock. If I'm wrong then please forgive me, but that would bring us back to the lock itself and how she needs a rounded pan and a couple of cosmetic touch ups. Just keep workin at it, you'll get it. BTW. The architecture of your rifle is nice.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thank you for the observation. This rifle is a work in progress that was on loan to the museum for the production of this video. I will pass your compliments and observations on to the owner.

[@danielhess1082]

Worth noting that while 110 grains of powder were packed in the cartridges for the brown bess, that many grains didn't make it down the barrel. The first little bit was used to prime the pan. In short muskets seldomly had a consistent load of powder from shot to shot. This isn't to say rifles or any other muzzleloading firearm were any better. When you're measuring with a volume measure the powder may not seat the same every time.

[@jakeroberts7435]

Damn, the City of Hampton, the name reached out and grabbed me. I got to spend time there as a kid, long ago in the 60s, my dad was stationed at Langley. From France to Virginia to Hawaii, being a brat had its perks. But what they are doing to our History breaks my heart, but not my resolve

[@55Quirll]

Yes, I was raised in the 60s too and am saddened by what the future generations are going to miss out on because of what the people in the past were and did.

[@jakeroberts7435]

@@55Quirll Like they say, erase the history, control the future. But at least Virginia got rid of that blackface governor, its a start.

[@55Quirll]

@@jakeroberts7435 Agreed, hope they bring back the statues 👍

[@jakeroberts7435]

@@55Quirll My sentiments also, history belongs to all of us, right or wrong, leave it alone lest we forget. Where does it end with the statues, this "woke" carp has gone too far.

[@55Quirll]

@@jakeroberts7435 Yes, best remember the wrong so as not to repeat it 👍

[@HaurakiVet]

The ability of the musket to mount a bayonet was a factor as well, once your rifle had fired it effectively became a very expensive club. The tactical skills that the French brought to the fighting was very important as the rebel high command had little experience with the set piece battle. The fact that Britain was dealing with a number of areas of conflict with the French and Spanish also worked to the US favour as the thirteen colonies were not a high priority, much more important were the sugar islands of the Caribbean, the American colonies not paying their way at that time. One of it's real values to Britain was as a place to send it's convicts which, post war, had to be shifted to Australia.

[@zootallure4819]

Well done.

[@TheBruces56]

I'm sure these tests were done with an experienced marksman. That factor is very important, especially back when firearms were much less consistent than today. In combat it is less important what the gun is capable of as it is what the shooter is capable of.

[@cmcapps1963]

I doubt they were very experienced, frankly. I've done my share of reenacting and I've seen much better groups from flintlock kentucky rifles at 50 and 100 yards

[@tedbaxter5234]

Enjoyable and informative, thank you!

[@uwepolifka4583]

If you use good greased fabric patches for the Brown Bess the accuracy rises significantly.

[@miketaylor5212]

to bad they didnt have those at kings mountain because fergesons troops found they couldnt shoot down the mountain at the overmountain men the musket ball wasnt seating it was rolling forward.

[@williamdaniels6943]

BUT THEY DIDNT and the accuracy was very poor!

[@simonwalker8300]

That was great, an objective look at what may have occurred, rather than just a feeling about it.

[@masonalexander7056]

Military muskets had two advantages on the battlefield. They were faster to reload. That is whyEuropean armies preferred them. Second, they mounted bayonets. The American long rifle was ideal for hunting, but the inability to mount a bayonet was a big disadvantage in battle. This is why Washington was so eager for French military muskets for the Continental army.

[@kurtwicklund8901]

Skimmed through trying to find comments about bayonets. Only yours so far. This is a major factor in the tactics of tge dat.

[@STepanHAmbroski]

I think there is something to be said for the practical accuracy of the respective firearms. Using modern shooting metrics and lingo to better put things into perspective, the Brown Bess had a grouping of approximately 12 Minute of Angle, or MOA, while the American long rifle had approximately a 6 MOA grouping. 1 MOA is approximately a 1 inch group at 100 yards, 2 inches at 200 yards, and so on. Most modern military service rifles, with standard ammo, can expect somewhere between 3-6 MOA, which means that the American long rifle, at least by modern standards, would be considered accurate enough by modern military standards. The Brown Bess, though "half as accurate" by these modern metrics, is still a respectable accuracy, especially considering the antiquated, obsolescent technology and ballistic limitations at the time due to both powder and ballistic coefficients of the projectiles.

[@NickRatnieks]

An interesting analysis, for sure. If you read the book "The Men Who Lost America" by O'Shaughnessy - and I recommend it, you get a sense of the mind-boggling logistical difficulties faced by the British. Indeed, you have to wonder how they did so well, and once the French and then the Spanish waded in followed by the Dutch, the war became a world war and ultimately the war for the colonies became a sideshow in a huge conflict.

[@slowpokebr549]

Just reading what it takes to fit out one ship of the line boggles the modern mind let alone supplying a landing force half a planet away from home.

[@kellybreen5526]

When Britain got enmeshed with the Revolutionaries France and her Allies attacked Britain and tried to regain what they lost in the Seven Years War. The British Empire was nearly destroyed by the war before it became really great. The United States really owed a debt of gratitude to the French for making the war impossible to win for the British. Of course we Americans were mostly transplanted Britons in those days. And in a few years France would demonstrate that their help had a generous dose of self interest in it as well. Generally speaking the British generally won the battles, but I don't think we lost a single battle in Afghanistan either and look how well that worked out for us.

[@NickRatnieks]

@@kellybreen5526 The London government thought that a huge display of force would overawe those- a small minority, it was thought who, apparently, had unwarranted grievances. When this failed it became a shooting civil war- it was a little later that term of "revolution" was coined. The big problems for the British Government- which it was unaware of, were that this was actually a massive shift in consciousness- the ideas espoused in America were nurtured in England but this "Age of Reason" was not understood and so the response was not the one that should have been employed- there should have been a negotiation. On that basis, the British Government was always "behind the curve" not least because of this change and the time it took to get information across the Atlantic. The Government believed there were far more Loyalists than there really were and many thought to be loyal just sat on the fence and rolled with the flow. Furthermore, the British Government found that not only did it have to supply provisions for the Army and the Navy but in many instances, they had to feed the hard core loyalists. Whenever, a decision was made that might have stopped the war, the Government found that the offers- had they been made earlier that might have brought the conflict to an end were rejected. It was not realised that the Americans were fighting for an ideal- not just territory alone and thus- unlike a typical continental European army of the time, would not give up and negotiate a peace treaty- which was the norm.

[@kellybreen5526]

@@NickRatnieks The British government of the time was out of step with its population. Hmm 250 years have past and nothing has really changed in that regard. Most people are pretty weary and apathetic about politics and I don't know a single person who strongly feels their government is doing a good job of representing their interests.

[@NickRatnieks]

@@kellybreen5526 There had been a sea change in bedrock reality which it either failed to recognise or deliberately ignored- probably, a bit of both. Back then, the government had its preferred "experts" and ignored others who had differing opinions but were just as expert. It is exactly the same today, and I think many have wised up to this partiality when it comes to making policy. I think many today would think that their governments operate in a parallel universe but that can only exist for a limited period- things are going to have to change. Indeed, governments are trying to change things- but not in the way most of the people are happy to see- it is up to the people to stop this dynamic.

[@davidian7787]

People get into all kinds of arguments about, this one shoots better, or this and that. I'm not military but I study military history, past and near past. One thing I hear a lot, going back a long time, is that you want a weapon that, when you pull the trigger, it goes bang and a bullet comes out the end. That's pretty much it. You can examine nuances in weaponry but without a vast disparity in performance it's logistics, the person carrying it, their motivation and tactics that are the real deciders in every conflict

[@bobnancymiller4931]

I've shot BP matches for over 35 years, and would never be satisfied with the results of that 100 yard target. Load development should allow that rifle group to be tightened up considerably.

[@williamdaniels6943]

and i guarantee if you were HUNGRY the accuracy of you shots would increase considerably!

[@kurtwicklund8901]

The test intended to cover accuracy distances not maximize the rifle results. If you have a better marksman on both weapons both results will improve.

[@MrAmptech]

With sports fans I use the knuckle ball pitch as an example of the musket and a football pass as the rifle.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for the comment. That's a simple and very useful analogy. Cheers

[@SootHead]

Nicely done! Thank you. I love this stuff and will look for more from you. I second the comment below about the loading aspects, the smoothbore being able to put somewhere near twice as many rounds downrange in a given time period than the rifle. In a shoulder-to-shoulder standup battle, that matters more than accuracy. There are also the fouling aspects of the rifle. Given the battlefield of the day, the bayonet was another important, if not vital aspect. I'd rather have a bayonet than a club any day. Still, the British did take the accuracy aspects of the rifle seriously... when their officers became targets at long range. By all accounts, that was the motivation for the deployment of the Ferguson rifle.

[@williamdaniels6943]

what good does it do to put twice as many shots down range if none of them hit anything. also there were so few ferguson rifles that they should not even be mentioned.

[@Tubespoet]

@@williamdaniels6943 yes, however as was pointed out, both sides used muskets as their predominant battlefield weapon, the rifle was an effective sniping weapon but less so in a battle where volley fire of muskets was still the main method of infantry engagement

[@Debbiebabe69]

@@williamdaniels6943 after a couple of volleys accuracy makes no difference - you are firing at a cloud of smoke by then, not a mass of men.

[@smoxen]

I learned a Lot !!! - Thank You Sir - Very enjoyable also !

[@TheMwarrior50]

I am glad someone finally did some proper tests on this myth, thank you! Ps: Which brands/models of repro flintlocks were used?

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for the feedback. Both of these weapons are older reproductions from the 1980s. The Brown Bess was made in Japan and the rifle is a modified Pedersoli .45 caliber. Both were on loan to the museum for the production of this video.

[@normanbraslow7902]

Kristopher Peters The Pedersoli is ok, but they are hardly premium rifles. You should have used a really quality reproduction. Your accuracy would have been far better.

[@tompickering]

@@normanbraslow7902 You think that had crafted in the last 18th century would be better quality than modern mass produced? No so sure - would have to look at individual specimines.

[@normanbraslow7902]

Tom Pickering Right. Most of the original Pennsylvania long rifles were of mediocre quality and did not survive. The best, of course, were superbly made. One cannot judge all of the Pennsylvania rifles on the very best ones. The ones we have now are almost all very fancy, and would have been very, very expensive. Too good to misuse. Most likely they were made for show. One more important point. If you shoot black powder, you know how corrosive the powder is. So, how well were they maintained is of paramount importance. Just how good the 200 plus year bores are is a critical factor. I think the final judgment is, in general the rifle was better. My point is the best of the top quality barrels made here are on average better than the Pedersoli barrels. They are made for competition, and are amazing. So, perhaps comparing a new custom made Pennsylvania rifle would give a more accurate comparison. I might add, the Pedersoli made Sharps reproduction rifles are very good, but the Shiloh and Christian Sharps will usually outshoot them. Not always, but on average the Shiloh and C. Sharps will.

[@TheHuntercamper]

@@tompickering and individual doing the shooting as well as their technique

[@phonixasz]

excellent dose of reality

[@lawrencemarocco8197]

Keep in mind that military tactics at that time featured volley fire where ranks of men would would throw several hundred balls of lead at the opposing force at time. Individual target accuracy was not as important as was volume of fire.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

Also after the first volleys, the battlefield was completely covered in smoke, and was very difficult to see anything at 100 yards.

[@imdeplorable2241]

Well done, sir. Very well done.👍

[@EdAtoZ]

City of Hampton, I am a little surprised you did not mention the Brown-Bess two main advantages 1) easier to load 2) the big advantage for the Brown-bess was a military musket so it has a bayonet.

[@manfredconnor3194]

Yes, a bayonet is very, very practical. If Pennsylvanians had duct tape back then the advantage would not have been so pronounced.^^

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for joining the conversation. We might be planning another video on this or related topics. Stay tuned.

[@ardshielcomplex8917]

And the fact that Muzzle loading Black Powder Rifles seriously fouled after 3 to 5 shots, requiring cleaning because they became difficult to load. Whereas the Smoothbore Brown Bess didn't foul so easily and could be cleaned faster and more conveniently when required (either fresh Urine or a quick splash of Canteen water when required). I've been collecting and shooting Black Powder firearms for over 40 years now, using them is in itself an education.

[@bill7778]

He did mention the bayonet.

[@ScoutSniper3124]

The quick loading is advantageous if your in formation firing en masse at another formation. Same goes for the bayonet. The wonderful advantage of the Kentucky was its accuracy, which really came into play with NEW TACTICS, such as taking cover, and not hanging around for the bayonet charge. Colonial Upstarts for the WIN!

[@quaxenleaf]

Glad you mentioned the French navy playing the pivotal role of tying up the British navy off the coast of England preventing them from resupplying Cornwallis.

[@vagabond5152]

Great and informative video, the amount of comments on this video of people yelling "NUH UH!" and disregarding most of what you said is humorous, but not surprising. Arguing whether or not a rifle was ever used to target a specific man in a battle during the revolution is irrelevant to the point being made in the video. The point is that yes, the rifles are much more accurate at long distance than the muskets, but no, that was not the deciding factor in the American Revolution. For the most part, all of the major battles in the American Revolution were typical 18th century rank-and-file pitched battles with artillery and dragoons/cavalry (both of which are specifically employed to destroy lightly defended or stationary targets!) where both sides were firing smoothbore weapons. One of the biggest misconceptions about the war is that the war was won solely due to guerilla warfare tactics, and with the image of small units of Americans dug into a tree line and firing from cover at an army of British soldiers who just marched haplessly into their fire, wondering why the Americans were being so ungentlemanly about the ordeal.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Well said and thank you!

[@williamdaniels6943]

TOTALLY WRONG. the war was won with a tremendous amount of small attacks blocking supplies and harrasing artillery movements. everytime the british left the coast they lost! everytime they tried to march anywhere they were shot at. they were arrogant and people hated them. also the people on the frontier were shooting at the british LONG before the revolution started! O and by the way british bayonets werent very gentlemanly! im on a roll i better keep going. also these gentlemanly british were paying the native americans for settlers SCALPS.

[@vagabond5152]

@@williamdaniels6943 I think you may have misinterpreted my comment, which is fair enough, it's a big block of text. In any case, I'm not disagreeing with you that the British were harassed by American guerillas throughout the war, and neither was this video - the point is that the rifle was not *the* deciding factor in the course of the war. Guerilla attacks and logistics ambushes were not solely the duty of men with rifles, that was not the argument made. The point is that the major battles during the war were decided by men with smoothbore muskets in the vast majority of cases. As a side note, I never said the British were gentlemanly, war is a sordid affair in general, the last bit was mainly a joke in reference to the some of common misconceptions that the British didn't understand the idea of guerilla warfare. They may have been overconfident at many stages of the war, but they weren't completely stupid.

[@thomasohanlon1060]

Most people tend to forget a lot of the colonial troops were also using the British Long Land pattern Brown Bess as well as many other types of muskets.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for joining the conversation. You are correct. At the beginning of the revolution the most common weapon on both sides would have been the Long Land Pattern British Musket. The "Short Land Pattern" British Musket that I used in the video was only introduced to the British Army in 1768 (or there abouts). So when hostilities broke out in 1775 this weapon had only been in service for about 7 years. Most of the American troops would have had Long Land Pattern Muskets, or their own personal fowling pieces. With a mix of surplus Dutch, French, Spanish and "Indian Trade" Guns.

[@thomasohanlon1060]

@@kristopherpeters6703Was only passing on a little information because the average person has known idea what was used nor where it came from. By the way great video .

[@LADY_JEMIMA_FORTESCUE]

Volley firing was the order of the battlefield, accuracy was not deemed too important very similar to volley firing arrows for area effect. remember the idea of pinpoint shooting is something of a modern idea.

[@mikewickerham8149]

I suspect that most colonists showed up with an English Trade gun. Probably the most common gun in use then.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for joining the conversation. The Colonial Militias and Minute Companies would have used a variety of arms depending on where they were. By far the most common weapon would have been the Long Land Pattern British Musket (also called First Model Brown Bess today). But you would also have found long rifles in the Mid-Atlantic Backcountry and a mix of English, Dutch, Spanish and French trade guns, fowlers, and muskets. We can document that blue painted English trade guns were taken out of the Williamsburg Magazine in 1775. This mix of weapons and calibers was one of the challenges faced by the Continental Army early in the war. Sourcing lead balls for weapons that ranged from around .50 caliber to over .80 caliber was a logistical nightmare. Let along making cartridges for the battlefield.

[@jackdelvo2702]

The deciding factor on the 18 the century battlefield was the bayonet and the training of the troops in massed formations. The British were at the time the masters of the tatics involved in the precise manovers needed to be made to make a massed bayonet charge at precisely the right time to break the enemy's line. But as you stated logistics not battlefield performance during the revolutionary war was their downfall.

[@kamaeq]

No, look up the statistics on bayonet vs ball and cannon casualties. The most common result of a bayonet charge was one side or the other breaking just before contact.

[@jackdelvo2702]

@@kamaeq Yes, but victory on the battlefield in the 18 century was determined by who won the field not casualties suffered. The British won the field at the battle of Bunker Hill even though they suffered vastly more casualties. They won when the patriots low on ammunition and without arms equipped with a bayonet fled the field in the face of a wall of British bayonets. This was the way to win a European war but not the way to win the ungentlemanly war of attrition that the Revolution was. The British took the field in almost every major conventional battle, problem was the field was just a lonely meadow in the middle of nowhere. The British Army lost the war when they started to run out of men, supplies, money and the support of Parliament for not having anything to show for all their “Victories”.

[@kamaeq]

@@jackdelvo2702 Victory in battle is the same today. In fact, without battlefield victories the revolution could not be won. Of course, my point about bayonet casualties still stands and the Americans at Bunker Hill fled before contact.

[@jackdelvo2702]

@@kamaeq North Vietnam won and the Taliban in Afghanistan won without winning a single battle but by terrorizing the population. The bayonet was the terror weapon of the 18 century both on the field and against civilian populations as in the Irish and Scottish rebellions. It was the terror factor of bayonet that made it so effective not its ability to inflict wounds. It never ran out of ammo or needed to be reloaded and had a reach that far outreached any other blade. And the British were the most skilled in its use. During the American revolution about the only time they were bested anywhere in its use was at the Battle of the Cowpens, not far from where I live. Once they had been outmaneuvered and were in disarray they faced a bayonet charge and collapsed. Not because of the casualties the bayonet inflicted but because of the terror it induced and this caused the British soldiers to throw down their weapons and surrender.

[@kamaeq]

@@jackdelvo2702 LOL, without winning a single battle? Pray tell us about the non-battles of 1975 with massed conventional NVA formations. Note what I said about unsupported guerrilla wars in both cases. It appears you are reading too much Brit philosophy, because they feel the same way. Commentary by Wehrmacht soldiers pointed out the terror induced by American attacks. They did not scream, sing, or rah-rah trying to close to bayonet range, they just kept coming. Break them and make them retreat, they reformed and advanced, mostly silently, and kept killing. A bayonet is nothing more that a blade to turn a firearm into a spear to defend against cavalry. It is useful in training to promote aggression, but evidently not required. Afghanistan, after Brandon violated the negotiated settlement and hung our allies out to dry, had another purpose, but that is a different topic.

[@USAACbrat]

They used both later rifle units were turned into line companies armed with muskets.

[@federicovesentini3719]

English army had rifled muskets too! The 1776 (or so) Ferguson rifled musket that also was one of the really first breechloading guns ever made ... but it was too expensive to be produced in a large number of units and the vast majority of gunsmiths didn't know how to build them

[@a_rs0nx790]

I think they using Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifle

[@miketaylor5212]

he didnt have them at kings mountain where he was killed.

[@flintymcduff5417]

Good comparison. With a tight fitted patched round ball the smoothbore will tighten up even more but your use of military loads made sense for the test.

[@MaxTSanches]

Hitting 'your' target is one thing, but in a massed battle you may just hit someone near your target. This is just as effective. Now hitting an officer or NCO is much more effective. This is where the rifle comes into play.

[@mugsnvicki]

I always thought French intervention turned the course of the war. I could be wrong, I'm a Canadian.

[@jshicke]

But how much faster is the musket able to reload? If rifles get a shot as I advance in line from 150 yards. The second rifle shot will be around 75 yards, at which point my muskets are in effective range. If my musket can get 2.5 shots off in the time it takes a rifle to get off 1 shot, then I would expect the musket still has an advantage over rifles when the line gets into 50 - 75 yard ranges.

[@dougcunha4120]

Way cool thank you that we informative straight to the point

[@OttoMatieque]

when the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was written, civilians had arms that were in some ways superior to what the greatest empire in the world had. This provides an interesting historical perspective on a topic that is actively debated today.

[@ronbyers9912]

Don't forget, the British had some troops armed with rifles just like the Americans.

[@kentwilliams4152]

I sincerely wonder how the Brown Bess would have done if equipped with a rear sight?

[@johnmullholand2044]

Have you never shot a shotgun with only a bead front sight? If you place the buttstock against your cheek, and do it the same every time, you can do quite well .

[@mcmax571]

I just like to say to all the 'rifles were useless crowd' was that the British formed the 95th regiment because they were on the receiving end of rifle fire throughout the War for Independence.

[@jackx4311]

The narrator of this video did not say that 'rifles were useless', did he? In fact, he covered that question in depth.

[@josephwalukonis9934]

But the British had some rifles as well and specifically hired German jaeger with rifles.

[@shastaham7630]

When you are able to shoot from concealment, you can take more time to load accurately, aim and fire calmly and, very important, have a cleaning rod with a patch attached to swab the barrel every 3-5 shots. With either of the firearms in this video, the accuracy would fall off after the third shot. As for calmly taking ones time to concentrate on the target and calmly take the shot, including implementation of breath control and squeezing discipline, the results justify the use of a lighter caliber, more accurate, but slower-to-operate weapon, such as a scoped bolt action Remington 700 in.308 NATO or.338 Lapua versus a semi-automatic/automatic M-16 in 5.56/.223. The same lessons now as 250 years ago.

[@adampurdy1333]

Except shooting from concealment was a one shot deal in this time period. After you had taken your shot everyone knew your position due the the cloud of smoke from the weapon.

[@Oldbritbyker]

There are a lot of comments here about rifle's fouling. In my experience with a Flintlock, fouling is an issue when cleaning with modern petroleum products. I believe that when I use wax or tallow that the barrel is seasoned like a nice old frying pan that doesn't stick. I use saliva lubricated patches as well, so that lube isn't fouling the barrel. The prior dirty powder residue seems to be cleaned out with each shot when I do this, and fouling isn't nearly as much of an issue. Anyone else that actually shoots BP have this same experience? Our forefathers weren't using Hoppes to clean their rifles...

[@scottgoodman8993]

Note a 100 yard dash is 15 seconds. It takes 60 seconds to load a rifle and at least 20 seconds to load a smoothbore. Brown Bess has a nice bayonet and flintlock rifle does not have a fitting for a bayonet. In line, I want a Brown Bess. 300 yards off, I want a rifle.

[@mikeblair2594]

Jacob Dickert made rifles that were meant to take a bayonet and if you know what you're doing it takes 30seconds max to load a rifle. Just sayin

[@ardshielcomplex8917]

Interestingly the Brown Bess had a service life in the British Army of 106 years ! Introduced in 1732 and finally taken out of service in 1838.

[@KaL_69_]

15 секунд только на идеально ровной трассе, в спортивной одежде, после долгого отдыха. Теперь попробуйте сделать то же самое с оружием и боеприпасами общим весом 15 кг, на пересеченной местности, после нескольких месяцев военной кампании.

[@erwin669]

@@mikeblair2594 Not after your first shot or two. I used to shoot black powder rifles and when you get to the 3rd or 4th shot you're pulling out the mallet to get the ball down the barrel because of how fouled it is. After the invention of the Minie ball in the 1850s it wasn't as much of an issue.

[@PickleRick65]

Lol. So for some reason you think it takes 3 TIMES as long to load a long rifle... Why do you think that?

[@neilpk70]

Range estimation was of primary importance as well.

[@clyd1206]

You dont need many rifles for them to make a large impact. The rifles were used in a marksman role. That allowed us to inflict high casualties to officers. Killing one Officer causes chaos on the battlefield in those days. Your overall point maybe true but you are severely underestimating the impact just a few rifles could make in those conflicts.

[@williamdaniels6943]

remember the colonists had to bark squirrels at times to EAT! they were very good with there long rifles!

[@michaelfrost4584]

As an Australian and ex Army SASR man, thank you so much for your video , I tend to agree with you. Looking forward to more of your videos 😊

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks. We will be publishing the rest of the videos in this series soon so please check back.

[@johneleazer9454]

well discussed, but as frequently provided by 'historians' a lot of causal relationship and reasoning. when militia with rifles were used with the superior tactic advantages of the rifle, the effects were devastating as Tarleton realized at Cowpens. how the revolution was won is based on many factors; one was tactics which is more about how to use terrain, timing and weapons than simply a rifle or musket. Rifles on an open battlefield was foolish, including the fact they could not support a bayonet. Their advantage is both distance and terrain (as on hills and woods). Muskets were great on the battlefield in numbers (which makes up with accuracy issues) and speed to reload.... Therefore a simple 'shoot-off' is not a reasonable comparison from tactical use of weapon. It is very disingenuous to generalize to a conclusion.

[@tegunn]

How the revolution was won was the French, period. Without them it would've been a different story..

[@johntillman6068]

@@tegunn The Americans drove the British out of the northern states, except for New York City, without French soldiers or sailors. Then the Continentals and militia likewise forced the Redcoats out of the southern states. The French army and navy were however instrumental in trapping the British at Yorktown, keeping Cornwallis from escaping to NYC. The US did benefit from French, Spanish and Dutch aid, however, to include Charleville muskets. Spain also defeated British garrisons in Florida.

[@andreww2098]

money was the main reason the US won, or to be more accurate the cost of fighting the war was too great compared to the revenues raised in the colonies to carry on fighting for it, add the French aiding the US and also the UK's other overseas combat costs and logistics and it just wasn't worth continueing to fight!

[@chillywilly3397]

Great presentation. I look forward to watching more of your historic, and my favorite time in history, videos.

[@kristopherpeters6703]

Thanks for watching. The other videos in our Battle of Hampton series will be published later this winter or early spring 2022.

[@tomcurran1538]

Remember that the Brown Bess has a significantly heavier ball than the 45 caliber

[@tegunn]

Rifles calibers varied depending on what the customer wanted, ranging from ~.36 to .60..He just used .45 caliber as an example.

[@sorshiaemms5959]

@@tegunn 45 s very accurate

[@tegunn]

@@sorshiaemms5959 as well as . 50 and . 54 cal

[@williamdaniels6943]

it was heavy and it dropped very fast!

[@tegunn]

@@williamdaniels6943 all bullets drop at the same speed at level. High School physics

[@readhistory2023]

They were sniping Brit officers...."- killed British General Simon Fraser during the pivotal Battle of Saratoga, hampering the British advance which helped cause them to lose the battle" Did they tip the war in the US favor? Nope, but they did have a definite impact.

[@manfredconnor3194]

Pennsylvania long rifle. The long rifle was developed on the American frontier in southeastern Pennsylvania, in the early 1700s. This guy is trying to keep the peace by calling it an "American Long Rifle". Except it was invented before America was America. It's a Pennsylvania long rifle. ^^

[@Gilbertmk2]

Reminds me of the saying, logistics wins wars.

[@eviljagtech]

Lindybeige Has a video called "Shooting to kill - how many men can do this?" where he goes into depth about military training. In the early part of the video he explains how Troops standing across from other men would not be able to shoot properly to do the fact they are killing another man right in front of them. This I believe is why people thought that you couldn't hit the side of a barn with one. The Long Rifle on the other hand looking at the records was an expensive firearm (they cost more then a house at the time and took a long time to make) was used by trappers, hunters and general mountain men type folk. These people would run into issues with Native Americans which were not all friendly and would be killed or kill as a part of life on the frontier. It was accurate but I thing the myth rises from the fact that these guys would pick off Officers which was frowned upon by Britain.

[@michaelfranciotti3900]

There's a book called Men Against Fire written by S. L. A. Marshal during ww2 (I think) that talks about this very phenomenon. Believe it or not, humans are just like most animals and actually have an aversion towards killing their own species. From a purely technical perspective, accurate shooting is actually pretty easy and most guys can easily hit man sized targets at the expected ranges. Yes the stress of the battlefield can effect performance, but so does our unwillingness to kill other humans. There's an episode of Black Mirror called Men Against Fire that deals with the same topic.

[@althesmith]

Washington's greatest weapons were Lafayette and Von Steuben. I think Steuben said "All soldiers are cowards. I simply ensure that they are more afraid of running than of fighting."

[@natwolf687]

I'd actually say his greatest weapon was adapting the guerilla tactics of the American Indian.

[@althesmith]

@@natwolf687 Washington per se didn't really adapt those tactics. Washington's ideal Continental Army was built very much around the European, particularly Prussian, armies. He welcomed Steuben and Lafayette especially because they were trained officers. What Washington did was essentially trade space for time, very much Fabian strategy.

[@nahkohese555]

One thing you are not taking into account - the folks using the Pennsylvania rifles were using their own personal guns, the ones they had been hunting with just about every day since before they could shave. They probably were a whole lot more accurate than you are. And most British soldiers had probably never fired a gun before joining the army- very few commoners had guns. By the way, your test shots with the Bess, did you by any chance take those with a sergeant barking orders at you while a couple hundred enemy troops were shooting at you? Think maybe that might affect their accuracy any? Battlefield archeologists have found numerous guns with 3 and 4 charges in them from soldiers who had misfires from fouling and just kept on reloading anyway, not realizing their gun hadn't actually gone off in the frenzy of battle. There are a number of factors your tests didn't take into account.

[@AtomHeartMother68]

Rifles were expensive. The Fowler was the real work horse for the average colonial, just as the shotgun aided western expansion much more so than the lever gun.

[@rogerclark9285]

@@AtomHeartMother68 Smoothbores were more versatile and had adequate accuracy for deer in the dense forests. They could be loaded with swan shot or buck and ball depending on what was being hunted.

[@tmclaug90]

It's also a bit harder to aim on the deck of a small boat that is rocking back and forth