|
|
Post by spence on May 3, 2021 21:24:06 GMT -7
I’ve run across some quite surprising history in doing research for my involvement in the hobby. You never know when something very interesting is going to show up totally unexpectedly. Reading “General George Hanger to all Sportsmen, Farmers, and Gamekeepers”, 1814, he mentioned a book published in 1808, Scloppetaria. I tracked that down to check something Hanger said, and was startled to find a description of telescopic sights being used on flintlock rifles by the British. _Scloppetaria: or Considerations on the nature and use of rifled barrel guns, with reference to their forming the basis of a permanent system of national defence, agreeable to the genius of the country_, by Capt. Henry Beaufroy, 1808 [Henry Benjamin Hanbury Beaufroy] Originally published as _Scloppetaria, by a Corporal of Riflemen_. “Others again have had a small telescope instead of an after-sight: the accuracy with which shooting may be conducted by this manner, is amazing; for although it required much trouble to arrange the apparatus for any particular distance, yet once done, the bullets would cut repeatedly one into the other, and not infrequently a second shot would so completely pass through a former, as scarcely to leave any additional indentation on the edge. Their liability to be out of order, however, has precluded their frequent introduction; the sight being adjusted by means of two cross wires in the tube of the telescope, similar to those used for transit instruments, the very jar of the piece firing will very soon alter their position, and consequently their accuracy can no longer be depended upon.” Telescopic sights in 1808? Surprising. But a bigger surprise was to come. The preeminent portrait painter of the revolutionary period, Charles Wilson Peale, put a telescopic sight on a flintlock rifle almost 35 years earlier, in 1775-1776. Here’s a neat article about that event. allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/charles-willson-peales-riffle-with-a-tellescope-to-it/David Rittenhouse has been described as the scientist second only to Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Palmer was a prominent gunsmith in Philadelphia at the time. Here’s a musket he built.  I find history endlessly fascinating, not least because you never know where any trail will lead. And there is so much of it, you will never run out. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on May 4, 2021 3:33:24 GMT -7
Yes! I have a reprint of Hangar's book. There are some other interesting stories in there about rifles and riflemen in the Revolution as well - including a documented 400 yd shot!
I have often wished Rittenhouse and Peale had left more detail on the scoped rifle in their writings, but it is indeed fascinating.
Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 4, 2021 6:53:11 GMT -7
Thank you for another interesting post Spence.
While the scope is interesting on many levels, there seems more to the accuracy of the shooting described in the book.
In order to achieve this level of shot to shot accuracy, needs consistency. They also must have been using a method to ensure each load was identical. Powder charge, projectile weight, diameter, and quality, all must be consistent.
It is also worth noting that the flaws of the scope were noted the same then as now. While all manner of shooting "optics" have gotten far more durable, they are still fragile in comparison to a good set of properly installed "fixed" sights. Some things really don't change.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on May 4, 2021 12:41:30 GMT -7
Yes, the accuracy described is impressive, and is the most detailed description of it I've found. Any description from the period is hard to come by, in my experience, and I've found very few. Shooting at George III's nose on a one foot square board at 150 yards, hitting a half-dollar at 50 yards, or a dollar at 100 yards, and "This afternoon I proved my [new] rifle gun----fir’d her 4 times and made excellent shot. 3 times out of 4 I put the ball within 2 inches of the spot which was the bigness of a dollar", distance not revealed.
Of course, the shooters Beaufroy was speaking of were target shooters, not Just Plain Bill, so they would have been more demanding and more capable. Still, one-hole groups are hard to find today, so one in 1808 is rather amazing, even with a scope.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 4, 2021 13:18:45 GMT -7
Yes, the accuracy described is impressive, and is the most detailed description of it I've found. Any description from the period is hard to come by, in my experience, and I've found very few. Shooting at George III's nose on a one foot square board at 150 yards, hitting a half-dollar at 50 yards, or a dollar at 100 yards, and "This afternoon I proved my [new] rifle gun----fir’d her 4 times and made excellent shot. 3 times out of 4 I put the ball within 2 inches of the spot which was the bigness of a dollar", distance not revealed. Of course, the shooters Beaufroy was speaking of were target shooters, not Just Plain Bill, so they would have been more demanding and more capable. Still, one-hole groups are hard to find today, so one in 1808 is rather amazing, even with a scope. Spence Well, of course. If someone can't shoot, they can't shoot, a scope won't help much. Skill generally trumps gadgets. Admittedly a single focal point aiming system does make aiming easier, especially as the eyes degenerate. But good shooting fundamentals still apply. Does anyone have any indication of the magnification of these devices at the time? |
|
|
|
Post by spence on May 4, 2021 13:55:45 GMT -7
Brokennock said: "Does anyone have any indication of the magnification of these devices at the time?"
Not that I've seen. The only reference to magnification in any way that I've seen was in relation to a single lens as a rear sight, and the power wasn't mentioned. It was in the sentence immediately preceding the Beaufroy quote above.....
"….some have fitted up the head with a small lens, through which they aim instead of the hole, but if these magnify the front sight and the target, surely they must magnify the error arising from unsteadiness, or other cause in the same proportion."
Spence
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on May 5, 2021 8:03:10 GMT -7
Thank you for another interesting post Spence. While the scope is interesting on many levels, there seems more to the accuracy of the shooting described in the book. In order to achieve this level of shot to shot accuracy, needs consistency. They also must have been using a method to ensure each load was identical. Powder charge, projectile weight, diameter, and quality, all must be consistent. It is also worth noting that the flaws of the scope were noted the same then as now. While all manner of shooting "optics" have gotten far more durable, they are still fragile in comparison to a good set of properly installed "fixed" sights. Some things really don't change. Would you hammer a nail with your fixed sights and trust them to within a tenth of a mil? |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on May 5, 2021 8:40:06 GMT -7
No,,,, I wouldn't hammer a nail with any sight.
But I certainly have fixed sight guns whose sights have taken real world beatings that would wreck an optic,, and only need to be recentered. I've broken scopes and red-dots, I've had several adjustable rear pistol sights fail, loose adjustment, fall apart.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on May 5, 2021 9:28:39 GMT -7
The average fella isn't concerned with such accuracy unless your the teams DM (designated marksman).
I do have hands on experience with various sighting systems on M4's. In a nut shell we use/ used them for rapid sight acquisition while abroad. Backup? Irons and every guy better be able to drive nails with them, your life ultimately may depend on it.
What's unfortunate today though is MANY are not proficient with the art of using irons. Do your part as the operator, they never will fail you.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on May 5, 2021 10:07:38 GMT -7
No,,,, I wouldn't hammer a nail with any sight. But I certainly have fixed sight guns whose sights have taken real world beatings that would wreck an optic,, and only need to be recentered. I've broken scopes and red-dots, I've had several adjustable rear pistol sights fail, loose adjustment, fall apart. Well my USO will. It trumps any iron sight in almost every way. Irons are backups for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on May 5, 2021 10:30:25 GMT -7
I'm curious about the tube and reticle arrangement construction. Brass, copper, scope of magnification... Allot going on here given the time period.
Also how was the piece affixed to the rifle? Brazed or dovetailed type of mounting system?
Let's not forget the fact someone manufactured and used such a rig, again given the time period it's utterly fascinating.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on May 5, 2021 10:34:22 GMT -7
I'm curious about the tube and reticle arrangement construction. Brass, copper, scope of magnification... Allot going on here given the time period. My understanding is that it was much like the 1950s Unertls with the external turrets moving the whole tube. I'm guessing brass fixtures and horsehair reticle since that seems to be standard for the time. |
|
|
|
Post by spence on May 5, 2021 12:13:41 GMT -7
Do you have a source for that description? I've read that Rittenhouse may have made the first telescope made in America, but have never seen anything about the scope used on the rifle. Rittenhouse was famous for his observation of the transit of Venus, and here's a link to the telescope he made for that. explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-A44Spence |
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on May 5, 2021 13:15:56 GMT -7
I'm curious about the tube and reticle arrangement construction. Brass, copper, scope of magnification... Allot going on here given the time period. My understanding is that it was much like the 1950s Unertls with the external turrets moving the whole tube. I'm guessing brass fixtures and horsehair reticle since that seems to be standard for the time. This makes sense. Do we know anything about it's ability to collect light and magnification? Reason I ask is producing a reproduction would be very fun and is on my mind... |
|
coot
City-dweller
Posts: 156
|
Post by coot on May 5, 2021 16:20:44 GMT -7
Logic can get us in trouble but to me it would seem that a logical early attempt to use optical sights, would be to mount the telescope from a surveyor's transit onto a rifle.
|
|
