 |
| Painting of British General John Burgoyne circa 1766 showing "dress" of a British General |
General Morgan called on Timothy Murphy at the Battle of Saratoga (October 7) and said, "That gallant officer is General Fraser. I admire him, but it is necessary that he should die, do your duty." Murphy scaled a nearby tree, (sometime after 2:30 in the afternoon) took careful aim with his Kentucky Rifle at the extreme distance of 300 yards, and fired three times. The first shot was a close miss, the second grazed the general's horse, and with the third, Fraser tumbled from his horse, shot through the stomach. General Fraser died that night.
...according to Luzader a frequently told story claiming it to be the work of Timothy Murphy, one of Morgan's men, could be a 19th-century fabrication.
It seems odd that this story includes no details about the rifle (when it was made, who the rifle-maker was, the caliber or amount of powder the shooter used) that made this near-miraculous shot because the rifle was as much of a hero as the shooter.
"Kentucky Rifles" (the vast majority of which were made in Pennsylvania) were a quantum leap in evolution from the rifles that were used on the European Continent where there were wild boars, distances were short, and labor (to carry heavy gear) was abundant.
Given the expense and difficulty in obtaining lead and quality gun-powder, the rifle-makers kept decreasing the diameter of the bore to conserve those supplies. To maintain effectiveness against deer-sized animals (which included humans, wolves and most black bears) the length of the barrel was increased to squeeze every last foot-per-second out of the powder charge.
Given the corrosive residue left by black powder, the (sometimes) casual cleaning and the primitive chemistry of the "grease" used to protect against corrosion, the corroded barrel of the rifle was "saved" by boring out to a larger diameter and re-rifling it. So a rifle might start out its life as a 0.32 inches in diameter (8mm) which was marginal for deer but optimum for treed raccoons and possum and turkeys. Then it might be bored out to 0.36". And then 0.40" and so on.
As a frame-of-reference, 0.32" rifle might "eat" 45 grain lead balls and 30 grains of black powder vs a 0.50" rifle which would use 180 grain lead balls and 80 grains of black powder. It is worth noting that there were far more raccoons and squirrels in the "wild" than there were white-tail deer. There were also fewer regulations that prohibited the us of dogs to find your dead deer afterwards.
One problem with lighter weight, round-balls is that they lose velocity quickly and have rainbow-like trajectories at longer ranges.
For example, in the story at the start of this post, a 64 grain 0.35" round-ball with a muzzle velocity of 1900fps (which is scooting right along for a black powder load) would have dropped to 470fps at 300 yards. Additionally, the bullet is dropping 10" with every 15 feet of forward travel which has implications for moving targets AND range estimation. Every change of 1 mile-per-hour in the speed of the cross-wind (think gusts in mid-afternoon, here) results in 13" change in the point-of-impact.
A 128 grain 0.44 round-ball fares slightly better with a velocity at 300 yards of 565 fps and with 10" of drop every 20 feet change in range. Even more worrisome is that even a 1 mile-per-hour change in the speed of the crosswind would change the point-of-impact by 10".
It is possible that the incident happened exactly the way it was written, but many factors would have to be exactly right for a 0.35" round-ball at 470 fps to penetrate through a wool blouse (and possibly belt or overcoat), skin and thence deeply enough to cause death in 12 hours. The chances of a 0.44" ball at 565 fps seems more likely (although still far from a sure-thing).
All things considered, this would still be a challenging shot at 200 yards but it would be significantly easier to accept the terminal effects and the chances of a "hit" at that kind of range.
And very few stories become less impressive with each telling.
You need to spell check! Battle of Saratoga.
ReplyDeleteThank-you for your correction. Changes were made.
DeleteWhen I was about 15 years old, me and a friend took our 50 cal. T/C Hawken rifles, a pound of powder and a bunch of round balls, and went shooting.
ReplyDeleteWe were trying the old rule of thumb about using 50 grains of powder for a 50 cal. ball, and with a spotter calling the shots we were both able to hit a bucket at close to 200 yds. with that load. I don't doubt that with more powder we could have been able to easily hit a man at 300 yds.
That is some darned fine shooting.
DeleteVery fine shooting given an approximately 10 inches by 10-inch, 2 gallon bucket and aiming with open sights. Perhaps like the 45-100 I was shooting a few years ago it had an aftermarket rear peep and hooded front site.
DeleteRich, I totally agree with you. You must have been a farm boy too. When you are that age, and live in the country, you can see well enough to shoot like that. I used to file shallow notches, and put in a small dot of golden paint, in the back of the front sight of my muzzleloaders to show me where to hold for long range shots. Works great--ken
DeleteERJ, we saw some of these in the museum at Valley Forge. Impressive weapons to look art, let alone fire (I imagine).
ReplyDeleteVery true. Also questionable is the 'range' of the shot. Estimating range accurately is something few can do with any accuracy.
ReplyDeleteI had an old CVA mountain rifle I put together from a kit. With a patched .440 ball, it was very accurate. Not sure the mid 1700's rifle would be comparable, but I was surprised by that rifle. We used to call our shots shooting branches off trees. It was almost too easy at 50 yards. I traded it for a Hawken years ago, and miss them both.
ReplyDeleteAt that time, rifles were rare and far more accurate than the common muskets. Given what I've read, this story was possible, though definitely uncommon.
ReplyDeleteThey were also far more expensive to buy.
One example I read of recently from the Napoleonic wars had a musket costing 3 pounds sterling in England while a good rifle that could reliably hit at 400 yards was 50 pounds sterling.
Jonathan
The same could be said of another gallant officer, Major Patrick Ferguson at Kings Mountain.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse this comment as firearms are not something I know a lot about, but the story describes the shooter as being in a tree. How feasible is it for him to be able to reload this rifle while being in a tree? My, admittedly limited, experience with muzzleloaders suggests this would be difficult.
ReplyDeleteI've read that 3 rounds a minute was the Revolutionary War standard. I reckon that is from a smooth bore. The rifle has a tighter bore to impart spin to the patched ball. I've tried to get 2 a minute from a Kentucky rifle and it was impossible for me. I wasn't willing to practice blowing that much powder and ball. They may have been using a wad and not a patch, to just roll the ball down the musket bore, instead of having to jam it down a rifled barrel and tamp hard on it to seat it to the powder charge.
DeleteIt could be they were passing up loaded rifles to the best shot in the company. Morgan's Rifles were skilled sharpshooters.
Handing up loaded rifles sounds logical. Thank you. I had not thought of that.
DeleteTrue black powder is only modestly corrosive and steel/iron bores suffer little damage when left uncleaned after shooting black powder for weeks. Modern black powder substitutes are far more corrosive. Most black powder rifles got cleaned with water soon after shooting because the fouling made them difficult to load after 5 to 10 shots.
ReplyDeleteStandard American rifle bores during the Revolutionary War were around .40 caliber. Many of those rifles today are larger in caliber, because it was then standard practice to 'freshen' their bores and molds when accuracy deteriorated.
Kentucky rifles were made by German immigrant gunsmiths for use in Kentucky, which was colloquial shorthand for all points to the west of Pennsylvania.