PDA

View Full Version : Marksmanship in 1775: Myth or reality?



arnisador
06-21-2010, 12:18 AM
Marksmanship in 1775: Myth or reality? (http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/16/marksmanship-in-1775-myth-or-reality/)



Some historians have perpetuated myths about the men and guns of the American Revolution, taking aim at American marksmanship. But recent scholarship shows that the citizen soldiers who fought at the Battle of Bunker Hill were far better shots than the “professional” British soldiers who faced them. Just how good were they? Read on.


A now forgotten Prussian artillerist of the 19th century, one Col. Schlimmbach, devoted many beetle-browed hours to calculating precisely that during the Napoleonic Wars (c.1799-1815) the enemy needed to fire “a man’s own weight” in bullets before scoring a hit. Assuming, then, that he survived both disease and cannon shot, the typical soldier who fought in just a few battles could be fairly certain of enjoying a peaceful, pensioned retirement.


The same could not be said for those British troops fighting the American militia in the early stages of the War of Independence. They stood a dismayingly good chance of being shot by the end of a single engagement. The marksmanship of the American fighting man has a long and storied tradition in our nation’s history. Since the Revolutionary era, Americans have assumed that they are, shot for shot, the finest marksmen on the planet.

lhommedieu
06-21-2010, 08:16 AM
Anyone know the origin of the term "the rifleman's quarter mile" that is used by the Appleseed project? At what point were American rifles (not muskets) technologically advanced enough to meet this goal? From some preliminary and sketchy research it appears that the term is in use during WW II but I am wondering how far back it goes?

Best,

Steve

lhommedieu
06-21-2010, 08:25 PM
To place my question into context: an 18th century long rifle might have an effective range of 250 - 300 yards in the right hands (i.e. an expert marksman remarkably in tune with his own weapon) - but 100 yards was probably far more typical; jump to 1848 and the Sharps Rifle gave you 2-3 times the effective range. Does it make sense that a "rifleman's quarter mile" seems more attainable during this era compared to earlier ones - or am I missing something here?

Best,

Steve