The Ferguson Rifle being the exception.

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

Absolutely

It was nice when the enemy stood shoulder to shoulder.

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.

@@patfranks785 Which they invariably did!

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.

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.

So true.

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

Yep

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.

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.

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

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

@@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.

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

@@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.

And it could take a bayonet.

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

@@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.

@@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)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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?

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.

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

@@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

@@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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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..

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

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

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

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.

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

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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

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

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.

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

@@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... ;)

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

@@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. .

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.

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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!"

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.

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

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.

@@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.

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.

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.

@@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

@@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.

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.

BUT THEY DIDNT and the accuracy was very poor!

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

He did mention the bayonet.

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!

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 .

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.

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

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

@@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.

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

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

Well said and thank you!

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.

@@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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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.

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

I think they using Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifle

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

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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

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.

@@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”.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

@@tegunn 45 s very accurate

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

it was heavy and it dropped very fast!

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

ALSO we had no reason to hold the ground. we could always shoot them later down the road!

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

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.

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.

@@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.

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

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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

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!

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

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.

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.

@@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 .