'Cause the field of guns in general is so wide, and its history so deep, a guy can't expect even long experienced gunwriters to know everything about the whole field. I'm sure we all realize that and try to make appropriate allowances for it.

Some of the modern ones, however, do manage to get my goat occasionally.

In particular I am exaspirated by the ones who try to establish themselves as "experts" by bad-mouthing the stuff that came before. One in particular, is always making rude remarks about how "useless" and how "ridiculous" the sights on old military rifles were, what with their adjustments out to 1,600 yards and even further. (Some went to 2,000 yards!!)

He apparently believes that no one could ever hit anything at those distances in combat, so the designers and the nations which made and bought those rifles must have been frauds, or fools, or some such.

Well, how about that? Is it true? Short answer? Hell no it isn't!

Clear back in 1887, when the 45-70 "Trapdoor"
Springfield was the standard U.S. Army issue, the question was answered rather convincingly.

In that year, Mr. Freeman R. Bull, an employee of
Springfield Armoury, who was also a well known target shooter of the day, and the same guy who did the shooting for the "regulation" of the Buffington sight designed for the Springfield, performed a little test.

He shot 10-shot groups at targets spaced from 100 to 2,000 yards away from the firing point. The rifle was a current issue trapdoor Springfield, with issue open sights, and using the issue government .45-70 ball blackpowder ammo. The groups were fired prone with a muzzle rest, in front of both Armoury and NRA witnesses & range personnel.

Here's what he found:

1. Out to 1,000 yards, none of the actual groups measured larger than about 4-1/2 MOA, and often were appreciably smaller. More important, they were all well-centered on the target, which means about half the shots in any group were sbout 2.5 MOA. For instance, at 900 yards, the group was 28" for all 10 shots, and all were in the bullseye of the target.

2. At longer ranges,they still were potentially VERY deadly. At 1,200 yards, all 10 of the shots were within a 5-foot circle. At almost 3/4 mile (1,300 yards) all hit inside a 5-3/4 foot circle. Even at 1,400 yards, all 10 shots landed in a 7' circle. At 1,500 yards all were in an 8-1/2 foot circle.

From there on out, accuracy dropped off, mainly due to the difficulty of seeing the targets with the open sights, and the weather.

Still, even at over 1-1/8 mile (!!) the vertical group was only 12 feet for all 10 rounds.

What that means is, as I am over 6' tall, if I were lying prone facing him and he got lucky with the windage, then based just on elevation one out of every two shots would have likely hit me somewhere.

Folks, those ain't good enough odds for me to feel safe being shot at by one of those "ridiculous" sighted old blackpowder rifles, let alone the later farther-ranging smokless wonders like the 1905 German 8x57 Mausers firing spitzer-boattail bullets.

Even MUCH less, I'm not gonna feel real comfy with a whole squad, or company, or some such group trying to hit me and my buddies with those rigs.

Something in that gun-writer's tales does seem "ridiculous", but it isn't the sights on those old guns!!!

The old-timers may be long gone, but they went the way of ALL flesh...rhey didn't die of stupidity.

Is it not also true that those early rifles were not expected to be for sniper like use. But groups of armed men against other groups. If you can get your elevation pretty much right, and are firing at a line or formation of men your accuracy doesn't need to be all that fantastic to count on hits from your own group of men.

I believe the idea was formation rifle fire being almost like short range artillery. Quite different than a single guy shooting at some single thing 1000 yards away. Though apparently that was possible at least as well in the hands of a well trained marksman.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
Is it not also true that those early rifles were not expected to be for sniper like use. But groups of armed men against other groups. If you can get your elevation pretty much right, and are firing at a line or formation of men your accuracy doesn't need to be all that fantastic to count on hits from your own group of men.

I believe the idea was formation rifle fire being almost like short range artillery. Quite different than a single guy shooting at some single thing 1000 yards away. Though apparently that was possible at least as well in the hands of a well trained marksman.

That is absolutely correct. In many instances, whole companies of soldiers would be directed to set their sights to a certain distance, then to aim at a particular height as established on a pole set immediately in front of their position (often on the near side of a close hill) or some other marker, and to fire both in volleys on command, and at will. The object was to bring masses of rifle fire down on troop concentrations as much as a mile or so away and hidden out of sight, behind a hill or a clump of trees.

it was a very useful tactic for breaking up formations of soldiers massing for an attack, or disrupting the "R&R" of troops drawn slightly back from the line for much needed rest...thereby severely affecting the enemy's morale when totally unexpected bullets started raining down on and around them, delivering pretty much random death and wounding at the whim of chance.

One term for it was "indirect fire".

Check out the battle of Plevna or the Plevna Delay. The Turks eventually lost the battle but not before they slaughtered thousands of Russians with Peabody-Martinis at extreme long range.

Long Range Fire


BTW,
Well trained young men with good eyes shooting a smokeless powder rifle with a 29" barrel as some Mausers have would be scary to deal with.
Imagine a company of them equipped with the old artillery range finders to provide the range.

The article is much longer than the following cut and paste

On the morning of July 30th, an artillery duel commenced and did not end until 3:00 p.m., when the Russians started their main troop advances. On the extreme left flank, Gen. Skobeleff got to within 600 yards of the Plevna out­skirts and started to fire his artillery when heavy long-range rifle fire caused so many casualties that he withdrew beyond their range and view. Prince Schachowskoi advanced to the village of Radisovo and killed the handful of Turks found there. Although his orders were to take the village and await new orders, he and his men were excited at their easy success. At 2:00 p.m., the Prince sent a message to Skobeleff saying that he was taking the offensive with his two brigades. This was the moment for which Osman Pasha's riflemen had been trained. The Prince lined up his two brigades and ordered them forward towards the Turkish trench line.

Russian reporters and military analysts later said that these troops began taking hits from the Peabody-Martinis at 3,000 yards, but this must be considered an exaggeration. What was really happening was a plunging high trajectory fire that was being accurately adjusted to keep pace with the oncoming infantry (see note below for a discussion of "plunging fire"). Men were falling in fair numbers at 2,000 yards, and the losses increased as they marched ever closer to their goal atop the hills of Plevna.

The Russian infantry accepted these losses in their usual stoic manner, but by the time they were 600-700 yards from the Turks, they began to unravel and break up into clusters. Some groups lay down to avoid the hail of lead and were goaded to their feet by their officers who valiantly urged them onwards. The concussion of Turkish rifle fire was constant and was augmented by Turkish artillery firing shrapnel shells into the Russian line. As the Turk officers called out each new range change, the riflemen adjusted their sights and poured forth more bullets in the general direction of the Russian line. The Winchesters lay next to many of them, fully loaded with 14 rounds. A box of 500 rounds was placed next to each repeating rifle, and other ammunition reserves were close at hand.

Still they came forward, these obedient Russian sol­diers, until they reached a point 200 yards from the Turkish trench line, when the order was given for the Turkish artillery, to cease fire and the riflemen to pick up their Winchesters and commence rapid fire. As the Winchesters spewed forth their rapid fire fusillade of lead, Russians fell in greater numbers than before. Still they came forward, bayonets fixed, ready to impale their oppressors in the trenches. According to prior plans, the Turks stopped shoot­ing when the Russians were about 50 yards from the trench line, and they now abandoned their first line of trenches and ran back into their second trench line, where they commenced their rifle fire all over again. The Russian advance stalled and took cover in the Turkish first line of trenches.

Prince Schachowskoi received a message that Gen. Krudner was sending a regiment to reinforce him, but they lost their way and never arrived in time to help. At 4:00 p.m., he could hold himself back no longer and ordered his remaining troops to charge the second line of trenches. The long-range Peabody-Martinis started their deadly plunging fire again, and Russians fell in large numbers as they worked their way uphill. closer to the second line. Once more the Winchesters took up the close-range fight, sending their wall of hot lead, decimating the oncoming infantry line. In a few places, Russians managed to get into the second line trench­es and, surprisingly, two companies actually got into Plevna itself, but Osman threw strong reserves into these points and drove them back.

By 6:00 p.m.. both flanks of the Russians had ended their attacks, but in desperation, Gen. Krudner sent his reserves, the Serpoukhof Regiment, into action near the center. These gallant men caught plunging fire as soon as they formed up their lines, and not one got closer than 100 yards of the Turk first trench line. Their leader, General Bojerianof. was hit near the 100 yard markers and was car­ried back by those of his personal guard who were still unhurt.

By 7:00 p.m., the Turks had full control of their second line trenches and attacked the now retreating forces of Prince Schachowskoi. who had no men available to act as a rear guard. The Prince sent a message to Gen. Skobeleff on his left. It read, "Extricate yourself as best you can. My companies (originally 200 strong) are coming back 5 and 10 men strong!" His personal guard had all been slain, and he kept around himself a small group of Cossacks. He man­aged to escape back to the Russian encampment four miles north of Plevna. His remaining soldiers were literally being driven before the Turkish rifle fire, causing the Russians to abandon three artillery pieces, all their wagons and their wounded (whom the Turks killed off during the night, as they took no prisoners).

Some of the "gunwriters" out there are useless and ridiculous.

Thanks for the great post, Ireload2. I know a certain "authority" on military smallarms who needs to read that every night for a month before he nods off to sleep. That was exactly the thing those long range sights on military rifles were designed for, and just think how much more potent the concept could be in the arsenal of a competent unit-commanding tactician when smokless powder guns replaced the Martini-Henrys and Trapdoor Springifelds...

Just in case anyone wonders, plunging fire from the 8x57-S, 30-06 173 gr.boattail, and the Russian 7.62x54 with a similar bullet, has a range of approximately 3 miles!! (5.500 yards)

There is also an account of a British unit called the Old Incorrigibles (I think) from WWI that volleyed a German formation with rapid fire. I have not been able to find the account on the internet but supposedly the German officer thought he was under fire of massed machine guns due to the long range and high rate of fire of the Brits.

some of these "experts" will also tell you that the folding leaves of express sights were wishful thinking by the makers as well, but i challenge any of them to try these sights with the loads they were regulated for and see what happens......if they can shoot that is. i issue the same challenge for the barrel sights on Sharps rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by degoins:
some of these "experts" will also tell you that the folding leaves of express sights were wishful thinking by the makers as well, but i challenge any of them to try these sights with the loads they were regulated for and see what happens......if they can shoot that is. i issue the same challenge for the barrel sights on Sharps rifles.

Good point you make there - I once had a Dan'l Fraser single shot stalking rifle in .303 British which was spot-on with MK. VII ball at the various ranges for which its leaves were regulated.

Its usefulness impressed me to the point where when I had my .375 H&H Magnum Mauser sporter built, I had a 4-leaf sight put on it, but did NOT have it D&T for a scope. I also bought a second set of leaves for it. The second set, just for fun not competition, has the leaves filed for 75, 150, 300, and 550 yards. Makes it asy to practice the longer ranges with it on standard Silhouette targets, and it is scary how well a guy can do with it sometimes if he is used to shooting open sights.

Very good point! I too have been appalled at some of the "history" some f these experts expound about certain military arms,a lot of it totally WRONG!

As regards those long-range sights, they were provided primarily so units could deliver long-ranged MASSED, VOLLY fire at large bodies of exposed enemy troops, rather than the engagment of point targets by individual soldiers. Although, during WWI, there were some Marine snipers known to have hit individual enemy soldiers at ranges up to 1,000 yards or so using the '03 Springfield. In at least one battle early in the war, the Germans thought that they were encountering long-range barrage fire from machine guns, when in actuality they were being shot at extreme ranges by British troops using rapid long-range volley fire from their SMLE's!