Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Rifles----Blunderbuss ?!?!

Expand Messages
  • Larry Lozon
    Hey Annette er Lloyd, thot you were rifles, do rifles shoot buck n ball Roger??? or have the Gower s transferred to No. 1 Blunderbuss Regt. ?!?!? From:
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 31, 2000
      Hey Annette er' Lloyd,
      thot you were rifles,
      do rifles shoot "buck n' ball" Roger???
      or have the Gower's
      transferred to No. 1 Blunderbuss Regt. ?!?!?

      From: "Annette and Lloyd Gower" <agower@...>
      ID LIKE TO LET OFF SOME BUCK AND BALL
      LOADS I JUST DONT KNOW WHERE TO POINT THEM .
    • Annette and Lloyd Gower
      Their were times riflemen were deployed with muskets , we are not unfamiliar to buck and ball , and understand not wanting to be on the receiving end ,
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 31, 2000
        Their were times riflemen were deployed with muskets , we are not unfamiliar to buck and ball , and understand not wanting to be on the receiving end , blunderbuss realy !
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Larry Lozon
        To: WarOf1812@onelist.com
        Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 7:44 PM
        Subject: [WarOf1812] Rifles----Blunderbuss ?!?!


        From: "Larry Lozon" <lalozon@...>


        Hey Annette er' Lloyd,
        thot you were rifles,
        do rifles shoot "buck n' ball" Roger???
        or have the Gower's
        transferred to No. 1 Blunderbuss Regt. ?!?!?

        From: "Annette and Lloyd Gower" <agower@...>
        ID LIKE TO LET OFF SOME BUCK AND BALL
        LOADS I JUST DONT KNOW WHERE TO POINT THEM .


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Please click above to support our sponsor


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
        In a message dated 1/31/2000 7:26:36 PM Central Standard Time, agower@bignet.net writes:
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
          In a message dated 1/31/2000 7:26:36 PM Central Standard Time,
          agower@... writes:

          << Their were times riflemen were deployed with muskets , we are not
          unfamiliar to buck and ball , and understand not wanting to be on the
          receiving end , blunderbuss>>

          But if a 'Rifleman' is deployed with a musket he surely ceases to be a
          rifleman by definition, QED!
          Or are we saying that a 'merkin rifleman carried two weapons?

          Cheers

          Tim
        • Annette and Lloyd Gower
          I believe the commanders if having a choice armed their men riflemen or not as they saw fit . battle of chilicothe ,riflemen fought with muskets , No mention
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
            I believe the commanders if having a choice armed their men riflemen or not
            as they saw fit .
            battle of chilicothe ,riflemen fought with muskets , No mention of carrying
            both
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <BritcomHMP@...>
            To: <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 11:26 AM
            Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Rifles----Blunderbuss ?!?!


            > From: BritcomHMP@...
            >
            > In a message dated 1/31/2000 7:26:36 PM Central Standard Time,
            > agower@... writes:
            >
            > << Their were times riflemen were deployed with muskets , we are not
            > unfamiliar to buck and ball , and understand not wanting to be on the
            > receiving end , blunderbuss>>
            >
            > But if a 'Rifleman' is deployed with a musket he surely ceases to be a
            > rifleman by definition, QED!
            > Or are we saying that a 'merkin rifleman carried two weapons?
            >
            > Cheers
            >
            > Tim
            >
            > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
            >
            > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0
            > percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers,
            > Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and
            > get the credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at
            > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative3AE ">Click
            Here</a>
            >
            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            >
            > The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
            square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
            square miles...
            >
          • Roger Fuller
            ... not ... carrying ... Barring supply problems, which were considerable in the US Army as well as militias during the War of 1812..... Q.: When is a rifleman
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
              >In a message dated 2/1/2000 5:04:47 PM Central Standard Time,
              >agower@... writes:
              >
              ><< I believe the commanders if having a choice armed their men riflemen or
              not
              > as they saw fit .
              > battle of chilicothe ,riflemen fought with muskets , No mention of
              carrying
              > both >>


              Barring supply problems, which were considerable in the US Army as well as
              militias during the War of 1812.....


              Q.: When is a rifleman not a rifleman?

              A: When he has no rifle.

              His range and accuracy acquired through the use and practice with a rifle
              are negated. A smoothbore musket of any barrel length can never compare in
              efficiency to a rifle. Stick the rifleman out in front of the enemy or even
              in a concealed position, and ask him to achieve the same results with a
              Springfield/Charleville/Bess and he'd have better luck with a catapult or a
              crossbow.

              Riflemen WITH rifles could achieve much more due to special training in
              marksmanship, concealment, as well as utilising the firearm's range. If the
              enemy got too close in too large numbers with their shorter ranged muskets,
              then it became, "Feets' don' fail me now". Foolhardiness got a rifleman
              killed- best to run like hell, so as to fight again, and live.

              Riflemen WITHOUT rifles were a waste of money and training, and are nothing
              better or worse than musketmen, hurling salvo after salvo of ill-aimed lead
              at the enemy in the hopes of hitting something, somewhere.

              Roger
              3/95th (Rifles)
            • BritcomHMP@aol.com
              In a message dated 2/1/2000 5:04:47 PM Central Standard Time, agower@bignet.net writes:
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
                In a message dated 2/1/2000 5:04:47 PM Central Standard Time,
                agower@... writes:

                << I believe the commanders if having a choice armed their men riflemen or not
                as they saw fit .
                battle of chilicothe ,riflemen fought with muskets , No mention of carrying
                both >>

                Well, I still say if a soldier is not carrying a rifle he is not a rifleman.
                Unless they worked on the same basis as many Civil War cavalry units. :-)

                Cheers

                Tim
              • Roger Fuller
                Ach...but Craig- zometimes a lightbulb is chust a lightbulb. Now... vere are mein tsigars?.... :^) *cough* Roger
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
                  Ach...but Craig- zometimes a lightbulb is chust a lightbulb. Now... vere are
                  mein tsigars?.... :^)

                  *cough*
                  Roger
                • Kevin Windsor
                  ... rifleman. ... Dismounted Dragoons. Sounds like military cutbacks to me!
                  Message 8 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
                    > Well, I still say if a soldier is not carrying a rifle he is not a
                    rifleman.
                    > Unless they worked on the same basis as many Civil War cavalry units.
                    :-)
                    >
                    > Cheers
                    >
                    > Tim

                    Dismounted Dragoons. Sounds like military cutbacks to me!
                  • Len Heidebrecht
                    Roger, A bit of a broad statement there, sir. Even armed with a musket, a rifleman and his file partner are well trained and act as a team. No, perhaps he
                    Message 9 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
                      Roger,
                      A bit of a broad statement there, sir.

                      Even armed with a musket, a rifleman and his file partner are well trained and act as a team. No, perhaps he can't get off that sparkling 300m shot, but he has all his other experience there, ie breathing technique, proper sight picture etc. The GLI were armed with muskets, and acted (and still do so) as superbe light troops.

                      I seem to remember Shadrach Byfield as a recruit making some comment about his musket and his sargeant then shooting the head off a pigeon.

                      Len

                      PS The only military reference I know of, to a 'double armed man' is the City of London Militia in Elizabethan times.

                      L
                      --


                      and ask him to achieve the same results with a
                      >Springfield/Charleville/Bess and he'd have better luck with a catapult or a
                      >crossbow.

                      > Riflemen WITHOUT rifles were a waste of money and training, and are nothing
                      >better or worse than musketmen, hurling salvo after salvo of ill-aimed lead
                      >at the enemy in the hopes of hitting something, somewhere.
                      >


                      HotBot - Search smarter.
                      http://www.hotbot.com
                    • Craig Williams
                      -Roger...you re obsessing...How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb? Concerned for your health. Craig
                      Message 10 of 13 , Feb 1, 2000
                        -Roger...you're obsessing...How many Freudians does it take to change a
                        lightbulb?

                        Concerned for your health. Craig
                      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                        In a message dated 2/1/2000 10:22:10 PM Central Standard Time, lheidebrecht@hotbot.com writes:
                        Message 11 of 13 , Feb 2, 2000
                          In a message dated 2/1/2000 10:22:10 PM Central Standard Time,
                          lheidebrecht@... writes:

                          << The GLI were armed with muskets, and acted (and still do so) as superbe
                          light troops.
                          >>

                          Perhaps but light troops are NOT riflemen. Just as a cavalryman without a
                          horse is not a cavalryman!

                          Cheers

                          Tim
                        • Len Heidebrecht
                          Oh sorry Tim. I must disagree, as an old Horse Guard, a cavalryman without a horse is dismounted, but he it still a cavalryman. The 19th LD could only field a
                          Message 12 of 13 , Feb 2, 2000
                            Oh sorry Tim. I must disagree, as an old Horse Guard, a cavalryman without a horse is dismounted, but he it still a cavalryman. The 19th LD could only field a Squadron of mounted men at any one point of the 1813-1814 campaign but those dismounted troops still would have marched in fours and kept their own unit preculiarities unless secconded to an infantry battalion.

                            Len
                            --

                            Just as a cavalryman without a
                            >horse is not a cavalryman!
                            >
                            >Cheers
                            >
                            >Tim
                            >



                            HotBot - Search smarter.
                            http://www.hotbot.com
                          • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                            In a message dated 2/2/2000 5:51:07 PM Central Standard Time, lheidebrecht@hotbot.com writes:
                            Message 13 of 13 , Feb 2, 2000
                              In a message dated 2/2/2000 5:51:07 PM Central Standard Time,
                              lheidebrecht@... writes:

                              << Oh sorry Tim. I must disagree, as an old Horse Guard, a cavalryman
                              without a horse is dismounted, but he it still a cavalryman. The 19th LD
                              could only field a Squadron of mounted men at any one point of the 1813-1814
                              campaign but those dismounted troops still would have marched in fours and
                              kept their own unit preculiarities unless secconded to an infantry battalion.
                              >>

                              Thus making them part of the Infantry for all practical purposes Len, No?

                              Technically of course you are right. I am speaking of practicality. He may
                              remain within himself a cavalryman but I would not like to see a dismounted
                              squadron form line and try countercharging a mounted one!
                              In like manner it would be a bit pointless sending out a dismounted
                              cavalryman to act as an army scout. When it comes to 'modern' cavalrymen I
                              have met real serving Hussars who have never thrown their leg over a horse.

                              I suppose the modern analogy would be you can't call a formation a tank
                              division if it does not have any tanks in it!

                              Cheers

                              Tim
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.