Confederate Sharpshooters

[RelicRoomGuy]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Nosworthy's book is "must" reading here.

Basically, though - most firing WAS done at smoothbore ranges, and most firing that WOULD have been more effective with adjusted sights...did not recieve that benefit.

[billwatson]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

If you want to have a lot of fun sometime have guys try to guess how far away something is, then measure it off and find out how many were even close. Part One of adjusting your sights is knowing how far away the target is, and that's where most of us don't even come close.

Range is critical to the effective use of the rifle musket, because of the ballistics -- low muzzle velocity, lots of arc in the trajectory, really makes where that bullet "falls" quite tricky. Between not using the sight and not knowing the range, it pretty much explains the reason why they all weren't dead within five minutes of opening fire on each other. They missed, a lot.

It's heresy, yup, but in my opinion a careful study of the patterns of hits taken in most battles would show that we tend to err on the high side when we are trying to do it right.

I believe you'll find both armies getting a little more serious about marksmanship in the winter of 1863-64. I know some fellows are getting quite excited about the research they are doing into Confederate sharpshooters in the ANV in early 1864, and maybe we'll see some of the results of that before too long.

[DougCooper]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

My favorite quote on firing too high was from a Confederate Officer complaining about volleys going off into space and not hitting Yankees. He said something to the effect that "to have hit any enemy that day the Yankees would have had to have been located much closer to heaven than they are generally placed by our people...

At McDowell a smaller Union force going uphill inflicted almost twice the casualties on the CS troops as the latter fired so high (aiming downhill - a common problem) that many of the US troops had more to fear from falling branches than they did from lead. The US troops simply waited for Stonewall's boys to silouhette themselves against the sky while attempting to fire downhill. A disproportionate number of casualities (and the KIA to wounded ratio) were in the head and chest. See The Battle of McDowell by Armstrong and West Virginia's Civil War by Lang (I think that is the book name).

[Matt Woodburn]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Mike,

It may be that you've never fallen into a company that I've lead. Actually, I've listened to a number of good men over the years, John Crabb, Chad Green, and Ward Williams to name a few do this. For years, every event that had a battle, I'd watch the enemy close and instruct the sights to be set at the proper distance. I'd instruct the sergeants to walk the line and be sure this was done (it actually makes their job more interesting than just watching from the rank of file closers). As the enemy would close every 100 yards the sights would be reset. You are right that it is a not often enough done part of drill. Next time you're in a company drill, be sure the instructor teaches this to the rank and file instead of waiting until in a fight. This way the guys who've let their leaves stick with rust can get them cleaned before they're actually needed on the line for an accurate shot!

Best Regards,
Matt Woodburn

Say, here’s a little something I’ve often wondered about but have never mentioned...

From my vantage, why has there never been any reenacted use of the sights on our infantry weapons while firing in formation at folks far away? I’ve never even been encouraged to "up" the sight one notch when the bad guys have yet to get close. There have been lots of times I’ve marched upon a field and NEVER been told to do anything other than elevate and shoot.

Is it just me or is this just one of those things we've formally overlooked?

Respectfully,
-Mike Montgomery

[M.Latham]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Can someone then explain Cleburne's Division, and its record of success at "long" ranges? Perhaps it was that Cleburne trained in the basics of rifle marksmanship as a British corporal, and perhaps Major Benham's treatise on the subject for Bragg's army (printed in Richmond) and "perhaps" disseminated to both major Confederate field armies had something to do with the increase in casualties inflicted on Federal armies in 1864.

Just a thought.

Mark Latham

[Dan Hadley]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

I've had the good fortune over the years, to fall in w/ a company or battalion now & then that has an officer or NCO w/ the presence of mind to remind the men to adjust their sights as the enemy appeared. Little things like that really help create a "moment". At a recent event, the men in the ranks were exhorted to be silent during the approach of the enemy, in order that our lieutenant could hear the bugle calls of the enemy, thus anticipating their next move. That was neat too.

I wish more fellows would try to stay in first person during a reenactment scenario- you see guys laughing and making all kinds of out of context commentary. It's bad enough trying to keep the proper frame of mind, with not being allowed to use a rammer, etc. Obviously the necessary safety rules must be followed. The downside of course is how it diminishes the authenticity of the moment.

Dan Hadley

[Enfilade]

Re: Lane's Brigade sharpshooter badges

Hello Mike! I came across this excerpt from "Lee's Tar Heels" by Earl J. Hess. When MacRae took over as Brigadier. He got it from the "MacRae Papers".

"Although only a temporary commander, MacRae organized a corps of sharpshooters for the brigade. This tactic was taken up by other brigade leaders as well. They realized that the task of skirmishing had become enormously important now that the opposing armies were constantly within striking distance of each other. The corps consisted of eighty men selected for their performance under fire. Each member wore a gold cross sewn onto his left sleeve, and names of each battle he fought were sewn onto his clothing. Charles Stedman later reported that the sharpshooters were armed with repeating rifles, but there is no evidence to support that claim. They were given special privileges to instill a strong sense of unit pride. Capt. Thomas Lilly of Company K, 26th North Carolina, was named commander of the corps. Lieutenants were drawn from eath of the other regiments in the brigade except the 44th North Carolina."

This happened right after Cold Harbor and during the Petersburg campaign.

Good to see you again on campaign this past weekend at Cold Harbor. And I hope this has helped in some way. :wink_smil

Mark Berrier
North State Rifles
combinations@northstate.net

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Hallo Kameraden!

Interesting about aiming low or aiming at the knees...

If one were to aim at the knees of man at 200 yards with the 100 yard sight up (and not the 200), the shot will plough a furrow in the ground well short of the target.
And, I would point to the changes made in the U.S. M1855 rifles, and rifle-muskets- where the 800 yard "long range" rear sight was replaced in 1858 by the "short range" rear sight with 100, 300, and 500 yard leaves only.
What was man, trained or untrained, practiced or unpracticed, supposed to do at 50, 200, 400, or 600, etc. with a "Springfield?" ;-)
Or an officer who would have to determine a distance to give the order for rear sights to be set to...
I am reminded of the Berdan/Post Sharphooter training on assessing/determining ranges for targets- but would have to wonder if the 18th century "Napoleonic" linear warfare model of levelled firings into a receiving mass of shoulder-to-shoulder men was just not too entrenched until later in the War when tactics and trenches/breastworks/earthworks started to make things look more like WWI than Waterloo?

And, if a man jerks the weapon to shoot it instead of just squeezing the trigger, the tendency is to jerk the weapon up (and fire high).

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Shootist Mess

[Enfilade]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

From my vantage, why has there never been any reenacted use of the sights on our infantry weapons while firing in formation at folks far away? I’ve never even been encouraged to "up" the sight one notch when the bad guys have yet to get close. There have been lots of times I’ve marched upon a field and NEVER been told to do anything other than elevate and shoot.

Is it just me or is this just one of those things we've formally overlooked?

Respectfully,
-Mike Montgomery[/QUOTE]


It might just be you Mike. :tounge_sm

We do this all the time and in fact, we did it at the Living History this past weekend at Cold Harbor during our demos. I distinctly heard my Lieutenant(Dave Hunter) bark out the order, "set your sights at 300 yards".

Mark Berrier
North State Rifles
combinations@northstate.net

[RJSamp]

Good stuff

Had the good fortune in my first major event, A140, to be in the same file as a Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant. M-14 expert rifleman. During the battles he talked us through the firings.....teaching us how to breathe, where to position our sights, how to estimated distances, affects of wind, heat.....how to time the light squeezing of the trigger with both your heart beat and your breath....in short, how he had hunted for food for the family before the war..... So, at least on the left end of 1st Company, Black Hat Battalion, we were doing exactly what you are pointing out...

diary readings are filled with soldiers who couldn't fire.... and lots of talk about the few who could. The story of Barbee near the triangle stone fence firing some 40 shots from atop a rock.....near Devil's Den, 2nd July, 1st TX infantry......is a classic.

RJ Samp

[Robert Braun]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Greetings,

Hard to say. I've read letters and diary entries discussing target practice (both formal and informal) by troops in fixed or semi-permanent camps but not once have I ever seen anything mentioned about their using sights in battle. Perhaps some did but logic suggests that most troops didn't since:

1. Battlefield smoke and/or climatic conditions often rendered use of sights pretty much irrelevant.

2. There was presumably a concentration on quantity, rather than "quality," of fire. Throwing large amounts of lead in the general direction of the enemy ensured SOMETHING would get hit.

3. Flipped-up sights were likely a distraction, even downright pain-in-the-a**, especially when loading.

Most of the "targeting instructions" I've seen in contemporary documentation mainly consisted of "fire low" or "aim at their kneecaps." Folks who are into shooting sports and ballistics can undoubtedly say more about this subject, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the general impression I get is that troops had a recurring tendency to aim too high or rifles would "shoot high." This is why commanders advised their troops to aim low. Indeed, I found a letter in the "United States Army & Navy Journal" from an officer recommending that the standard firing commands be revised to state something to the effect of "Ready. Aim-LOW. FIRE."

Your thoughts?

Mark Jaeger

I have a journal account where a soldier in the Thirty-third Wisconsin specifically mentioned adjusting his sights before firing at a gray-clad opponant, perhaps located in either the Georgia Fort or the Salient Work covering the Hall's Ferry Road.

Bob.

[markj]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Greetings,

Please see the attached item (in Adobe pdf), for whatever it's worth....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Johan Steele]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

In "Soldier's Heart" a book on a young man w/ 1st MN describes the command given to set the sites to a particular range... he thought the range was too short but did as ordered. I believe he was referencing 2nd Manasas but don't recall. It's been quite a while since I read it, have to go get it from the library again.

I believe I've also read of something similar at Chickamauga w/ the 2nd MN.

I remember the mention of some Regulars wedging a slice of gutta percha under the short range leaf of their Springfields... apparently they had an annoying habit of flipping up at inopportune moments, wedging a bit of gutta percha underneath prevented this. They didn't expect to need to use any but the short range leaf.

Interesting topic.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Hallo Kameraden!

"I remember the mention of some Regulars wedging a slice of gutta percha under the short range leaf of their Springfields... apparently they had an annoying habit of flipping up at inopportune moments, wedging a bit of gutta percha underneath prevented this. They didn't expect to need to use any but the short range leaf."

I am not familiar with the reference, but yes:

The late M1855 and M1861 and M1863 ("Type I") two rear sight's leaves (the combined 100 and 300 yard, and the separate and longer 500 yard) fit flush with "steps" in the side wall of the sight base. They lift from front to rear to elevate.
Jamming or wedging something under the 100/300 leaf from the REAR of the sight will keep it (and the 500 yard leaf) from pivoting on the screw.

Interesting, as it sets the sight at 100 yards.

In the Modern World, one could do the same, or GENTLY squeeze the ears of the rear sight base a WEE BIT closer together with a vise.
Of the roughly 100 or so M1855's M1861's, M1863's I have handled, the rear sight leaves ranged from tight to floppy regardless of the condition of the gun- which would seem to relfect upon "fit and finish" as well as actual CW use or past 140 years of "Moderns" playing with them. (in loosening, or not loosening them up).

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Whose M1861 Leaves Flip Up In The 105th OVI Imamge Mess

[Rifleman]

Re: Using Weapon Sights

Being a competitive shooter and "Dog of War" this is a subject that has held my curiosity for some time. My feeling is that troops in the Civil War war were better trained in marksmanship than many today would expect, what they did lack was training in killing...being conditioned to kill.

After WWII it was found that only about 10% of the rifleman in the ETO who were surveyed anonymously reported killing, 20% firing at least 1 shot with the "intent" to kill, with conditioning those numbers have continued to rise in each conflict since.

When I look at the last year of the Civil War I see men's hearts harden and they go from shooting at the enemy to aiming at the enemy. I don't think they were "highly" trained marksman but I do think that for the most part when the musket went boom most hoped nobody really got hurt....not such a bad thing really!