AHC: Make the Ferguson Rifle standard issue for British soldiers

The Ferguson Rifle was an early breech-loading rifle, which saw limited use in the American War of Independence. Because of its design, it combined the accuracy of a rifle with a firing rate well in excess of even a smoothbore musket. Despite these advantages it was considered too expensive and time-consuming for general issue, and only a few hundred ended up being made. What would have to change, technologically speaking, to make mass-production of Fergusons a feasible prospect?
 
Why is everyone trying to kill the Union in its cradle lately? All these 'ARW loss' WI's...

To answer your question, nothing short of ASB---Britain was very broke and simply couldn't afford to mass-produce such a costly weapon -and- make it standard-issue by the time of the American Revolution.
 
British tactics at the time were pretty successful and not really suited to the fergusons anyway. Not to mention it would be hella expensive to manufacture the guns and drill the soldiers to use them.
 
Why is everyone trying to kill the Union in its cradle lately? All these 'ARW loss' WI's...

Maybe because it was the anniversary of the burning of the White House by the British in the War of 1812, yesterday?

It will be the anniversary of the Battle of Long Island this Wed.
God Save the Queen! :D
 
What would have to change, technologically speaking, to make mass-production of Fergusons a feasible prospect?

Well hoping I am not engaged in an act of gross thread necromancy :eek:

In answer to mass production where mass production is understood to be using machine tools in the factory system then really you have to wait until the arrival of the nineteenth century and better steam engines and machine tools.

If by mass production you mean the ability to produce the Ordnance Rifle (aka the Ferguson Rifle) at a price competitive given its merits with other military rifles then the answer is just about nothing. Luckily for you a fellow called Jesse Ramsden, more famous for his work with precision instrumentation had already developed a fairly modern screw cutting lathe in order to build the tools he needed.

That it could be used in the manufacture of Ferguson's multi-start thread is just a happy by-product for you. Do not expect very large numbers to be turned out though, Ricky Roberts and Bryan Brown reckoned that British manufactures would max out at one thousand units per year (I assume they mean rifles as if they mean all firearms that is an extremely low estimate and wildly in disagreement with available figures).

However while General Issue is not likely the use of the Ferguson Ordnance Rifle as a Standard arm is not impossible from the available contemporary capacity of the British arms industry (1776-1786).

It is worth noting that Patrick Ferguson never intended nor saw his rifle as an arm for line infantry but as the solution to the problems of light infantry. That is the rifle has the accuracy at range but lacks the rate of fire for smooth bore carbines. The Ferguson design as noted could fire marginally faster than a typical smooth bore.

The key defects of the Ferguson was that one) its inventor and key promoter died in battle before getting it entirely through the trials process and two) it was a bit tender around the lock mechanism where the one piece stock was prone to breaking.

To address Drager's point though it is unlikely that the Ordnance Rifle alone would have killed the infant United States.

As Municipal Engines pointed out the British (and most every other major European power's) tactics of the day were highly effective on the battlefield. The Ferguson while slightly more effective across the board (providing you did not break it) than other firearms still had the same general limitations.

It used the flintlock ignition system so expect a misfire rate somewhere about 1/6 shots (though this of course varies dramatically from day to day and even volley to volley with Captain Cook recording an occasion when half the firelocks failed).

It is a gunpowder arm which somewhat limits the advantages of both its accuracy and rate of fire in a sustained engagement due to smoke and fouling, though that is a limitation not a complete show stopper.

So had the fragility problem been solved the most likely outcome would have been a slightly earlier start for the Experimental Rifle Corps or future Brigade of Rifles and the Royal Americans receiving the Ordnance Rifle instead of the Tower Rifle and later the(Baker) Infantry Rifle .

Sharpe would have carried a Ferguson Ordnance Rifle instead and would from time to time be able to shoot the odd extra Frenchman.

However it probably would not have much altered the subsequent history of the world.
 
WI: British troops in the ARW were equipped with longbows?

An interesting WI. Do the Americans retain their modern weaponry? If so, they will still succeed. For sure the longbow had a better range, rate of fire and accuracy than muskets but there were reasons why primitive firearms replaced the longbow. It is just as well the American leaders ignored Ben Franklin's suggestion: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...33241&uid=2129&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70 .
 

Sior

Banned
An interesting WI. Do the Americans retain their modern weaponry? If so, they will still succeed. For sure the longbow had a better range, rate of fire and accuracy than muskets but there were reasons why primitive firearms replaced the longbow. It is just as well the American leaders ignored Ben Franklin's suggestion: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...33241&uid=2129&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70 .

The main advantage over smooth bore muskets is plunging fire; arrows can be dropped down on people behind cover.
 
while producing enough Ferguson rifles for the entire British army seems to have been impossible, I wonder if a thousand or so wouldn't have been useful for one particular group: foragers. These Brits often ran afoul of Americans armed with hunting rifles (which had a better range than muskets, but were oh-so-slow to load)... the Ferguson would have been handy there. Still, it seems that even that many would have been about impossible to be ordered by the Brits...
 
An interesting WI. Do the Americans retain their modern weaponry? If so, they will still succeed. For sure the longbow had a better range, rate of fire and accuracy than muskets but there were reasons why primitive firearms replaced the longbow. It is just as well the American leaders ignored Ben Franklin's suggestion: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...33241&uid=2129&uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&uid=70 .

It is interesting, though the POD would need to be far before the actual tax dodging snit got eggy. (Before the American Revolution for those of you who expect sensible English)

Intriguing article and thanks for pointing it out Perdu. However I am not sure that the decline of the longbow was solely due to the decline of archery as a past time. Remember even when peace reigned in the British Isles plenty of English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Man and Cornish found employment abroad as mercenaries.

Left unaddressed is why longbow armed mercenaries ceased to be among the most sought after professional military contractors? Something else must have been going on to dissuade the real enthusiasts of both war and toxophily from carrying on with the longbow.

Then again looking at HS II's question on the assumption that yes the British Government do rely on archery what problems are thrown up?

One of the issues with training archers to use the longbow is that it took considerable amounts of time. Not only does this effect the ability of the British Crown to expand its available force in times of conflict but it further restricts the social groups that can be recruited from.

Wellington described the British common soldier as the scum of the earth but while a bit harsh it was certainly true that by the C18th the British Army was recruiting the majority of regulars from the labouring (and criminal) classes while officers came overwhelmingly from the gentry.

The longbow however was an arm of the English and Welsh yeomanry, that is small land holders or tenant farmer who were rich enough to pay only money rents and from the towns shopkeepers and artisan craftsmen. The English Parliament had experimented with raising an army of horse, artillery and pike and shot infantry from these sorts of people and turning them into professional long service troops. It was called the New Model Army and while wonderfully effective when it came to the battlefield was far too politically minded to be tolerated post the restoration.

Besides an awful lot of those yeoman types actually backed the ideas of the American Colonists.
 

Sior

Banned
It is interesting, though the POD would need to be far before the actual tax dodging snit got eggy. (Before the American Revolution for those of you who expect sensible English)

Intriguing article and thanks for pointing it out Perdu. However I am not sure that the decline of the longbow was solely due to the decline of archery as a past time. Remember even when peace reigned in the British Isles plenty of English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Man and Cornish found employment abroad as mercenaries.

Left unaddressed is why longbow armed mercenaries ceased to be among the most sought after professional military contractors? Something else must have been going on to dissuade the real enthusiasts of both war and toxophily from carrying on with the longbow.

Then again looking at HS II's question on the assumption that yes the British Government do rely on archery what problems are thrown up?

One of the issues with training archers to use the longbow is that it took considerable amounts of time. Not only does this effect the ability of the British Crown to expand its available force in times of conflict but it further restricts the social groups that can be recruited from.

Wellington described the British common soldier as the scum of the earth but while a bit harsh it was certainly true that by the C18th the British Army was recruiting the majority of regulars from the labouring (and criminal) classes while officers came overwhelmingly from the gentry.

The longbow however was an arm of the English and Welsh yeomanry, that is small land holders or tenant farmer who were rich enough to pay only money rents and from the towns shopkeepers and artisan craftsmen. The English Parliament had experimented with raising an army of horse, artillery and pike and shot infantry from these sorts of people and turning them into professional long service troops. It was called the New Model Army and while wonderfully effective when it came to the battlefield was far too politically minded to be tolerated post the restoration.

Besides an awful lot of those yeoman types actually backed the ideas of the American Colonists.

The biggest problem with the longbow is the length of time it takes to learn and the muscle power in the upper body required for a bow that could be up to 185lb draw weight.


Training[edit]

Longbows were very difficult to master because the force required to deliver an arrow through the improving armour of medieval Europe was very high by modern standards. Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it was at least 360 newtons (81 pounds-force) and possibly more than 600 N (130 lbf), with some estimates as high as 900 N (200 lbf).[citation needed] Considerable practice was required to produce the swift and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers are recognisably adapted, with enlarged left arms and often bone spurs on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers.[22]
It was the difficulty in using the longbow which led various monarchs of England to issue instructions encouraging their ownership and practice, including the Assize of Arms of 1252 and King Edward III's declaration of 1363: "Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery." If the people practised archery, it would be that much easier for the King to recruit the proficient longbowmen he needed for his wars. Along with the improving ability of gunfire to penetrate plate armour, it was the long training needed by longbowmen which eventually led to their being replaced by musketmen.
On the battlefield English archers stored their arrows stabbed upright into the ground at their feet, reducing the time it took to notch, draw and shoot.
Range[edit]

The range of the medieval weapon is not accurately known, with much depending on both the power of the bow and the type of arrow. It has been suggested that a flight arrow of a professional archer of Edward III's time would reach 400 yd (370 m)[23] but the longest mark shot at on the London practice ground of Finsbury Fields in the 16th century was 345 yd (315 m).[24] In 1542, Henry VIII set a minimum practice range for adults using flight arrows of 220 yd (200 m); ranges below this had to be shot with heavy arrows.[25] Modern experiments broadly concur with these historical ranges. A 667 N (150 lbf) Mary Rose replica longbow was able to shoot a 53.6 g (1.89 oz) arrow 328 m (359 yd) and a 95.9 g (3.38 oz) a distance of 249.9 m (273.3 yd).[26] In 2012, Joe Gibbs shot a 2.25 oz (64 g) livery arrow 292 yd (267 m) with a 170 lbf yew bow.[27]
 
For sure the longbow had a better range, rate of fire and accuracy than muskets but there were reasons why primitive firearms replaced the longbow.
It should be noted that in 1792 Lt-Colonel Lee of the 44th Regiment of Foot advocated the replacement of the musket with the longbow, citing:

  • Equal accuracy
  • Rate of fire four to six times greater
  • No smoke to obscure the target
  • Hails of arrows demoralised the enemy more than musketry volleys (bit tenuous, I think)
  • Any hit was likely to put the unfortunate target out of action, at least until the arrow was extracted (again, bit tenuous in comparison to a hit from a .75 musket ball)
  • Archery tackle was cheaper.
 
It should be noted that in 1792 Lt-Colonel Lee of the 44th Regiment of Foot advocated the replacement of the musket with the longbow, citing:

  • Equal accuracy
  • Rate of fire four to six times greater
  • No smoke to obscure the target
  • Hails of arrows demoralised the enemy more than musketry volleys (bit tenuous, I think)
  • Any hit was likely to put the unfortunate target out of action, at least until the arrow was extracted (again, bit tenuous in comparison to a hit from a .75 musket ball)
  • Archery tackle was cheaper.

Okay minor quibble but the Land Pattern used a nominal 0.71" diameter ball of about 540 grains weight, remember with muzzle loaders you need a certain amount of windage else the bullet will become lodged in the barrel. Would still constitute a man stopping hit though as you point out.

Anyway I would love have seen the Board of Ordnance's reply to Lt-Colonel Lee...it may be that they would have quote Napoleon "You may ask of me anything but time"

Sir Henry Coke complained to Lord Burghley in 1590 that of the approx 100 archers in the Hertfordshire Militia all were unfit to pass muster for want of sufficient practice.

It might be worth noting that one standing corps that was able to induct its recruits as young boys nevertheless abandoned the composite bow in favour of firearms. I refer of course to the Janissaries but their decision taken when the Ottomans and they were still clearly a formidable force suggests that something other than a simple lack of training was going on to cause the decline of warbows in general if not the longbow in particular.
 
The rationale behind moving from longbows to muskets has always struck me as a bit of a puzzle. The argument that urban slum dwellers can be trained up to use muskets much more quickly than they can be trained for the longbow makes sense. That said, it seems logical that bows can also be used as an area weapon -- large groups of archers firing arrows en masse into formations of unarmored infantry or cavalry, rather than trained archers shooting at picked targets. Longbows certainly outranged early muskets.

Still, there must have been a reason Native Americans traded their bows for muskets in Colonial America.
 
In re: the speed thing, there's a video here of a guy shooting a Ferguson rifle 6 times in a minute, vs. 3 or 4 for a contemporary musket:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHF-AMA_cAw

I reckon being able to fire twice as fast as your opponents with better accuracy would give you quite an advantage on the battlefield, although of course that presumes that you can actually manufacture enough Fergusons and keep them in good enough repair to make them a viable weapon. Hence the original question in the OP.
 
In re: the speed thing, there's a video here of a guy shooting a Ferguson rifle 6 times in a minute, vs. 3 or 4 for a contemporary musket:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHF-AMA_cAw

I reckon being able to fire twice as fast as your opponents with better accuracy would give you quite an advantage on the battlefield, although of course that presumes that you can actually manufacture enough Fergusons and keep them in good enough repair to make them a viable weapon. Hence the original question in the OP.

Except that is a demonstration of burst fire, furthermore it is unaimed burst fire. Now don't get me wrong the man in video is Ricky Roberts, a re-enactor with the Hesse Kassel Jaeger Korps and his is probably the most fired of any Ferguson Pattern Rifle in history.

You will note the number of misfires as well, three by my count in the demonstration. These would have been really awkward if you were trying to pot a skanky yanky or a French Voltigeur.

Now of course one of the big advantages of the Ferguson Ordnance Rifle is its ability to reload in ten(10) seconds. Given that skirmishers operated in pairs as part of a widely dispersed company though, sticking your balls...sorry bullets in your mouth is not conducive to good communications. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2CFFkg-_UI

However Ricky Roberts has demonstrated the same performance in a more normal stance.

Yet again I caution you that it was unaimed fire.

To which you might quite fairly point out that most if not all battalion fire was unaimed. So certainly do not think I am arguing the Ferguson is useless nor would it have been other than a welcome addition to the arsenal of the British Empire if its flaws could be overcome.

What I am cautioning is against thinking that it would have dramatically changed history all by itself. However since there certainly existed the manufacturing capacity in England to turn out the Ordnance Rifle in sufficient quantities to equip light troops in numbers there would have been butterflies.

Trying to quantify who would have lived among the British and who would have died among French and Americans and Natives and so on would be somewhat hard.

Also you have to consider that if the British introduced it others would have likely copied it. True no one else had at the time Britain's capacity in armaments production but that does not mean you might not have seen Ferguson type weapons appear in other hands.
 
I cannot conceive that British gun makers had even the capacity to rifle enough barrels for a general issue of any rifle to line infantry let alone the extra machining of Ferguson's screw. Even a generation later the Baker rifle could only be rifled by a limited number of gunmakers and this only in numbers for light infantry alone.

The arcing trajectory of these rounds places a premium upon the firer to judge the distance to the target accurately. Ferguson had these skills but few others in the army possessed them and no scheme of training was available for common soldiers. Hence the numbers of German game shooters recruited IOTL who came with relevant experience (and usually with German rifles).

The Ferguson rifle suffers from a notable weakness in the lock area (already weakened by the necessary piercings for normal flintlock weapons) through the large extra hole for the vertical screw. Given the 'rude and licentious' ability to mishandle and abuse their weapons most Fergusons in line infantry hands would broken within months at best.

For line infantry operating en masse the first exchange of shots obscures vision down to 100 metres at best. Hence the issue of robust smooth bore muskets to them was the correct answer to the problems they faced where volume of fire into the smoke cloud was more important than accurate fire. Washington sought to build his infantry on exactly these lines so, as the Loyalist forces appreciated light infantry accurate rifle fire and increased their use of them, the Rebel forces were removing their rifles and replacing them with smooth bore muskets.

So what could be done with the Ferguson. Certainly not a standard line infantry issue. I doubt if they could even be made in sufficient numbers for the growing light infantry who had to use German jaeger rifles purchased in Germany to have sufficient weapons to arm them. The best use would have been for the best shots within light infantry units as snipers ('snippers' in period usage) with the experience and skill to both use the weapon at a distance before and away from the mass infantry and act to clear enemy artillery to a distance that would impede their effect and only use round ball.

There is one feature of the Ferguson that all breech loaders share and that is to be able to readily load and fire from a prone position. This makes them poor targets and gives a supported position to increase their accuracy. Certainly muzzle loaders can be loaded in a prone position and drills evolved for this but the rate of fire is hugely slowed.

To see what would be necessary for the Ferguson to be a standard infantry issue we must look to the 1850s where the potential of the rifle musket led to schools and programmes of training to teach range estimation to professional soldiers to unlock their range potential over more than 1,000 metres. In the hands of an ill trained mass levy we can look to the experiences of their use in the American Civil War in the 1860's where line infantry may as well have used smooth bore muskets as firing distances frequently remained at 200 metres or less and the, literal, fog of war obscured their enemies.

So for the Ferguson to be employed in more than sniper numbers we need the industrial step up in organisation to make them, which takes time. A programme of intelligent training to educate the troops to make use of them, which takes time, the study and appreciation of senior and junior officers of how to use them in a very different way to muskets and some cunning plan to stop them breaking in half at regular intervals. Some POD long before the war would be necessary to have these effect within time to be in general use by Loyalist forces.

There were good reasons for later choosing the Baker rifle (a virtual copy of the German jaeger) as the standard light infantry weapon. It was as accurate as could be expected for a round ball load out to 200 metres, robust enough to withstand continuous use in the field and could fire ordinary carbine cartridges almost as fast as a musket when a rapid short range volume of fire was necessary. What superceded the Baker rifle was the revolution in ammunition from the 1840s whereby a variety of types of cylindrico-conoidal bullets were developed to expand into the rifling upon firing but load as easily as a loose musket ball. This allowed accurate fire beyond 1,000 metres but this was all generations in the future. The round ball was the known standard and this is what the Ferguson had to use.

The best standard issue of a Ferguson would be in a sniper/artillery-suppression platoon within a light infantry company or as such within each company of light infantry regiments. Perhaps a few hundred guns in all.
 
Top