| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MaguasBastardChild
Pathfinder
Warning:
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 18 2007
Status: offline
|
 Posted - October 19 2007 : 12:47:06 PM
|
|
Hawkeye had some longbarrel, and some of the shots he made, esp when he covered fired the messenger, were far too ridiculous, even when he shot the Major as he burned. Id believed it a bit more had he missed a couple shots then made one hit. those guns werent accurate over 300 yards at the very most, with that long barrel. the regualr ones maybe accurate to 150 yards. Im guessing they were .57 cal Hawken rifles. But if Hawkeye had the same gun for years on end, you can get pretty good with it, although the barrels were 'unrifled' as far as i know and each shot is basically a crap shoot to be the same as the last, Though he never missed. And at the begining of the movie when magua was in that cloud of smoke then dissappeared, hawkeye should have and would have just fired into the cloud. That is my one complaint, the unrealistic distances and hitting the indians from the fort when the messenger ran
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Irishgirl
Council of Elders
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 14 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 19 2007 : 12:56:27 PM
|
| That's Hollywood for you. Movies are unrealistic just like jumping through glass and not even getting cut. |
IG |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Fitzhugh Williams
Mohicanland Statesman
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 17 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 19 2007 : 2:34:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by MaguasBastardChild
.57 cal Hawken rifles.
If you are referring to the guns made by J & S Hawkin of St. Louis, then they are 19th century guns. If you are referring to the guns made by Christian Hocken (also Hawkin) or his brother Wolfgang Haga, then they are 18th Century but too late for the F&I War.
quote:
although the barrels were 'unrifled' as far as i know
The barrel was rifled and could hit most any target the shooter could see. It's hard to sight something much over 150 yds with open sights, though.
|
"Les deux pieds contre la muraille et la tete sous le robinet" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ridgerunner
Pathfinder
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 12 2006
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 19 2007 : 5:51:22 PM
|
I believe Tim Murphy of Revolutionary War fame dropped a British officer at a distance of 500 paces,there is also a case of another officer being killed at 525 paces.
These have been recorded. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 19 2007 : 7:16:20 PM
|
This has been discussed in previous threads, but it's always fun to rehash this stuff...
I just want to point out that there is no way a .50 cal round ball will completely punch through a human body at 300-400 yards! Hollywood strikes again... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
MaguasBastardChild
Pathfinder
Warning:
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 18 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 19 2007 : 7:51:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Obediah
This has been discussed in previous threads, but it's always fun to rehash this stuff...
I just want to point out that there is no way a .50 cal round ball will completely punch through a human body at 300-400 yards! Hollywood strikes again...
300 yards it could, providing you could hit the target.
Col George Hanger, a British officer, became very interested in the American rifle after he witnessed his bugler's horse shot out from under him at a distance, which he measured several times himself, of "full 400 yards", and he learned all he could of the weapon. He writes:
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."
Quotations from M.L. Brown's, FIREARMS IN COLONIAL AMERICA
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 19 2007 : 8:02:09 PM
|
I'm not questioning the accuracy, just the penetration.  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
MaguasBastardChild
Pathfinder
Warning:
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 18 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 20 2007 : 12:25:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Obediah
I'm not questioning the accuracy, just the penetration.
it would penetrate the mellon.
Far as the movie goes, it would be hard to hit moving targets from those ranges. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Light of the Moon
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
December 18 2004
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 20 2007 : 1:07:41 PM
|
I always kinda' scratched my head at that particular scene too . I mean even with a sniper rifle that shot would have been difficult let alone an old rifle.
But that's hollywood for ya' . |
I live in my own little world - but that's okay, they know me here! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
MaguasBastardChild
Pathfinder
Warning:
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 18 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 22 2007 : 12:07:59 AM
|
| well the most ridiculous shot was when they were going nuts over Uncas being killed and Hawkeye grabs two rifles, one in each hand, and with each shoots an indian at the same time. cmon guys, like the injuns are going to just stand there. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Light of the Moon
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
December 18 2004
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 24 2007 : 12:52:06 AM
|
Those indians did! I guess if you paid them enough money they'd willingly die for ya' !
Sorry~couldn't help it !
|
I live in my own little world - but that's okay, they know me here! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
RedFraggle
Mohicanite
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 13 2006
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 24 2007 : 3:48:52 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by MaguasBastardChild
. . . cmon guys, like the injuns are going to just stand there.
Obviously, they knew they were supposed to attack one by one in an orderly fashion---like all good movie enemies. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Monadnock Guide
Council of Elders
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
March 14 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 24 2007 : 4:22:26 PM
|
| 300 yards with an "open sight?" ... How big is this target? A human head? A bit of a challenge I'd say. ;) |
you can keep "The Change" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
|
|
James N.
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 24 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 11:50:05 AM
|
It is more helpful if you contrast the comments by Maj. Hanger regarding RIFLES with what he also had to say about the non-rifled military MUSKETS:
"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored ( as many of them are ), will strike the figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object. I do maintain and will prove that no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier's musket, by the person who aimed at him."
The common misconception regarding this period is that the poor, stupid British stood in ranks in the open, for no good reason; and were thereby slaughtered by the crafty Indians/Colonials/French, who were all OF COURSE armed with "Kentucky"/Pennsylvania longrifles. This hogwash persists in Ridgerunner's repeating the now-discredited but oft-told story of that loudmouth, Timothy Murphy.
In fact, rifles such as "Killdeer" were VERY rare in the period; John Adams wrote his wife about the strange "new" weapon he'd heard about once he got to Philladelphia for the Continental Congress - the rifle. And this AFTER the battles at Lexington and Concord; where, by the way NONE of the Mass. militia had them! When you consider ALL rifles were manufactured by hand by individual craftsmen, much like Japanese swords, you get a better understanding of their rarity. Muskets, on the other hand WERE manufactured in factories; but hardly in Henry Ford's efficient "assembly line" fashion, like now, still requiring a LOT of time-consuming hand fitting of hardware to stock.
Muskets had no interchangeable parts until after Eli Whitney's introduction of "mass production" in the early 1800's. Just like now, that influenced the reason why there was resistance by the government/military to adopt rifles instead of muskets: Muskets could be mass-produced, and were thereby a lot CHEAPER; as well as much faster to load and fire! Rifles were also NOT fitted to take a bayonet; which in this period was considered the infantryman's primary weapon! It was not until the Civil War that practical rifle manufacture came along, resulting in the bloodbaths that characterized battles in the 1860's. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
MaguasBastardChild
Pathfinder
Warning:
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 18 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 12:06:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by James N.
It is more helpful if you contrast the comments by Maj. Hanger regarding RIFLES with what he also had to say about the non-rifled military MUSKETS:
"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored ( as many of them are ), will strike the figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may just as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object. I do maintain and will prove that no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier's musket, by the person who aimed at him."
The common misconception regarding this period is that the poor, stupid British stood in ranks in the open, for no good reason; and were thereby slaughtered by the crafty Indians/Colonials/French, who were all OF COURSE armed with "Kentucky"/Pennsylvania longrifles. This hogwash persists in Ridgerunner's repeating the now-discredited but oft-told story of that loudmouth, Timothy Murphy.
In fact, rifles such as "Killdeer" were VERY rare in the period; John Adams wrote his wife about the strange "new" weapon he'd heard about once he got to Philladelphia for the Continental Congress - the rifle. And this AFTER the battles at Lexington and Concord; where, by the way NONE of the Mass. militia had them! When you consider ALL rifles were manufactured by hand by individual craftsmen, much like Japanese swords, you get a better understanding of their rarity. Muskets, on the other hand WERE manufactured in factories; but hardly in Henry Ford's efficient "assembly line" fashion, like now, still requiring a LOT of time-consuming hand fitting of hardware to stock.
Muskets had no interchangeable parts until after Eli Whitney's introduction of "mass production" in the early 1800's. Just like now, that influenced the reason why there was resistance by the government/military to adopt rifles instead of muskets: Muskets could be mass-produced, and were thereby a lot CHEAPER; as well as much faster to load and fire! Rifles were also NOT fitted to take a bayonet; which in this period was considered the infantryman's primary weapon! It was not until the Civil War that practical rifle manufacture came along, resulting in the bloodbaths that characterized battles in the 1860's.
Hawkeye was called "longrifle' by the Sachem chief. (How did the Sachem know Hawkeye had that nickname anyway, as Haweyes dad calls him a few times by it too??)
So was Hawkeye carrying a longrifle? We see the barrel is very long (increasing accuracy at longer ranges), but were the guns of that period actually posessing 'rifled' barrels? The reason the muskets are so innaccurate is the lack of rifled barrels, so a pinball is basically being shot out of it and it comes out with random and inconsistent precision |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ridgerunner
Pathfinder
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 12 2006
Status: offline
|
|
|
Fitzhugh Williams
Mohicanland Statesman
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 17 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 3:23:52 PM
|
quote:
Hawkeye was called "longrifle' by the Sachem chief. (How did the Sachem know Hawkeye had that nickname anyway, as Haweyes dad calls him a few times by it too??)
So was Hawkeye carrying a longrifle? We see the barrel is very long (increasing accuracy at longer ranges), but were the guns of that period actually posessing 'rifled' barrels? The reason the muskets are so innaccurate is the lack of rifled barrels, so a pinball is basically being shot out of it and it comes out with random and inconsistent precision
Cooper was writing to the people of his time, who by then had heard all about the longrifle and had a great appreciation for it and the many myths created in its behalf. If Cooper said he had a longrifle, then he had a longrifle. If Rowling said Dumbledore was gay, then he was gay. Same then as now.
The main reason muskets were inaccurate is that they used an undersized ball and weren't patched. |
"Les deux pieds contre la muraille et la tete sous le robinet" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
RedFraggle
Mohicanite
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 13 2006
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 5:40:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by MaguasBastardChild
. . . How did the Sachem know Hawkeye had that nickname anyway, as Haweyes dad calls him a few times by it too? . . .
Hawkeye is a feared and respected, and somewhat legendary, figure on the frontier. A white man who has grown up with the Delawares (the arch-enemy of the Huron!) and is a crack shot with a long rifle is sure to be talked about among enemy tribes, like the band of Hurons the sachem leads.
quote:
Originally posted by Monadnock Guide
300 yards with an "open sight?" ... How big is this target? A human head? A bit of a challenge I'd say. ;)
Depends on whose head it is. Some are much larger than others.  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 25 2007 : 7:02:38 PM
|
| An interesting sidelight to this subject is that, during the Civil War (hey, it's what I know best), the Springfield rifled-musket was mass produced at several armories and had interchangeable parts and individual serial numbers, whereas the Enfield rifled-musket, which was imported by both sides in the bazillions, was basically manufactured by small, family-owned shops, and thus did not have interchangeable parts or serial numbers (contrary to that famous scene in "Glory"). |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Monadnock Guide
Council of Elders
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
March 14 2005
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 7:42:35 PM
|
| Heh, heh, - good point RF ;) |
you can keep "The Change" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
James N.
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 24 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 8:07:34 PM
|
Sorry, Obediah, but the Springfields didn't have serial numbers, either; nor did the Mississippis. Colt revolvers DID; but they were at first civillian arms, primarally. ( Don't know about their notorious revolving rifles, though. ) I was in the core group of reenactors in Glory who were watching out for mistakes like that, but somehow that one escaped us at the time.
I know Ridgerunner's a fan of Tim Murphy, maybe rightly so; but a well-reasoned article I saw in the past ( probably in American Rifleman ) pointed out that MANY of Morgan's men were aiming at Fraser, even if he did ask Murphy to "do the deed"; and that some of the others were considerably closer to the target. Richard Ketchum DOES credit Murphy in what is probably the best account of Saratoga; but in the absence of forensic ballistics, it's probably impossible to now know which of many riflemen deserves the credit. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Obediah
Mohicanland Statesman
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
August 16 2006
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - October 25 2007 : 11:16:53 PM
|
Oops...my bad about the Springfield S/N's...so much for trusting my memory! BTW, there was one other major historical goof in "Glory" (that I can remember): the flogging scene. Flogging had been erased from US Army regs for several years by then, IIRC. Don't get me wrong! I dearly love this movie...even if it does star Ferris Bueller and The Dread Pirate Roberts!  FWIW, this was the first movie I ever saw Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, and Andre Braugher in! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
halfbreed
Pioneer
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 18 2006
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 25 2007 : 11:18:20 PM
|
just like nobody will ever know for sure who killed gen.ross at northpoint in 1814.
h-b |
| report to moderator |
|
|
James N.
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 24 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 26 2007 : 12:13:08 AM
|
We certainly knew that flogging was an historical anacronism; but it was an important part of the SCRIPT. So, like so many of Mann's gaffes, it of course stayed in. As you may know, the 54th was in fact a showcase unit, given priority in many respects such as equipment ( like the Enfields, for example ); but again Hollywood never lets the facts get in the way of a good story! In reality, while the regiment was mustering in and beginning training, Shaw was honeymooning at his Long Island home.
If you want to put a face to the perpetrator of all that is good about Glory, as well as many of the mistakes, blame the Connecticut corporal ( I forget his name ) who Denzel almost has the fight with. The same one who, as they march to their doom shouts, "Give 'em Hell 54th!" That's the author of the screenplay, having his own little cameos in "his" movie!
At the time we filmed Glory, only Matthew Broderick was a "name"; Morgan had been on a kid's TV show ( the Electric Co. or Sesamie Street ) and a movie that was released while we were in the middle of filming; and Denzel had been a TV Dr. on St. Elsewhere, and had a few small parts in other movies. Hardly "star" turns; but Morgan went straight from Glory to Atlanta to film Driving Miss Daisy. It was released first, because there was a lot less post-production work on it vs. Glory; so that by the time Glory came out, his star was already in the ascendant! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
MaguasBastardChild
Pathfinder
Warning:
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 18 2007
Status: offline
|
Posted - October 26 2007 : 12:55:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by James N.
[
At the time we filmed Glory, only Matthew Broderick was a "name";
I looked up 'wimp' in the dictionary, and they showed a picture of Alan Alda, and then a picture of Matthew Broderick right next to it. Great examples Oxford!!!!!!!!!! I agree |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
What guns did they carry? Hawkeye was that great a shot??
Topic Locked
Posted - October 24 2007 : 4:23:46 PM
