Could the USA of won the Revolutionary War with the 22 LR rimfire?

[DalesCarpentry]

Could the USA of won the Revolutionary War with the 22 LR rimfire? I happen to think if it were invented back then that we would have won the war much faster with our little 22 LR. The reason being it was much more accurate than anything they had then. They may have been able to throw bigger bullets but we could put them where we wanted. Even as far as range goes they might be able to shoot another 50 yards further but they were lucky to hit anything at 150 yards. I think you could kill a person at 100 yards with a 22 LR round. I never tried it but I sure would not want to be standing in front of a guy at 100 yards with a 22 LR and he knew how to use it. So you tell me. Dale

[mirage1988]

The indians would have won if they had compound bows so your question is irrelevant! (that was a joke dale, don't get mad)

[slim rem 7]

absolutely.. assuming you gonna let the patriots all have velocitor ammo..also you gotta assume 22 accuracy as it is today..heck snipers with cz452 an foot soldeirs with mag fed bolt actions an semi marlin 60s..even today they would be formidable...assuming they had gurrila warfare tatics nailed dn well..
 the cong did us one favor... they showed us how to just keep adapting to anything we threw at them over there..we still shoulda won ..but im always gonna be in favor of civilian rule... they just don t belong on the battle field ,,with dang cameras an such.. they mabe oughta be accidentally shot if they stray into the battle,, so they can show how merciless our soldiers are..
lets see now fondahead 2 clicks left.. ;
 them fondaheads was known to be the baddest soldiers charlie had..slim

[DalesCarpentry]

Yes I am talking as accurate as it is today. Dale

[Sourdough]

Since you brought this subject up.

I had a dream about a year ago where I was taken back to the Revolution period.  And the one thing I did carry back with me was a case of  M-1 Garands with cases and cases of ammo.  Think of the havoc this old sniper could wrack on the British.

[BBF]

The indians would have won if they had compound bows so your question is irrelevant!

They would have done just fine with what they had if they would have banded together as one group  instead of beating the crap out of each other early on.

[gstewart44]

Since you brought this subject up.

I had a dream about a year ago where I was taken back to the Revolution period.  And the one thing I did carry back with me was a case of  M-1 Garands with cases and cases of ammo.  Think of the havoc this old sniper could wrack on the British.

Take out all the officers at the onset of every battle.  Then the cavalry.    Aim small, miss small....

[DalesCarpentry]

I see this thread has been viewed many times with little response. I know for sure now days I sure would not want to head off to war with a 22 LR rifle. I am just saying with the modern 22 LR we would of kicked their ass in short order. Of corse we would have to teach our guys back then not to stand in a line and fire all at once. Dale

[Questor]

Ah once again the .22 rimfire comes under scrutiny. The finest cartridge of them all. By far, my favorite.

Such a discussion requires some chat about subsonics, extra high velocity hollow points, 60 grain heavies, and bulk packs of Walmart Federal. Some may even include the Hanned tool, which is dandy for drawing more blood using a bullet that penetrates deeper and straighter than a hollow point while still punching leaky holes through tissue.

It would have been a feared cartridge because of the way it wounds in the short term and kills in the longer term of a couple of days.

[gstewart44]

The one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that a modern 22lr is smokeless.   Hundreds of  Marksmen could choose thick cover to snipe from with the Redcoats in the middle of an open field.  The British army was only as good as an open field force.    They certainly took a beating in the Carolina backcountry.  Squirrel country and 22's.   Good combo. 

[bilmac]

You just about have to stand up to produce any volume of fire with a muzzleloader. Just the fact that a 22 is a breech loader allowing its user to prone out would have made a huge difference.

[Old Fart]

I guess maybe if the walmart store were able to keep it in stock back then.....

[rex6666]

Since we are dreaming, if we are to stay with rim-fires, the 17hmr ot 22mag
would have been better.

[blind ear]

Hunter and Indian tactics are what won the war I thought. That and the British had to spend a lot of money on another front. The bankers here weren't big enough to oppose the home militia, they didn't need to. They needed to develope thier own industry here rather than be dirrected from Great Britian. I don't really know. eddiegjr

[Questor]

eddiegjr:

You just mentioned the most important thing: how you fight is more important than what you fight with. 

For perspective, our military doesn't fare well against tactics similar to those used by the revolutionary soldiers.

[pastorp]

If they had 10/22s and lots of ammo you bet we could a won the revolunary war.

If the indians had a had 10/22s they would a wiped each other out as well as all the buffalo before we even got here.

The problem in America today is, as a people group, we no longer have the will to win a war. JMO We have a lot of fine young lions but not the will to turn them loose so we could actually win.

Regards,

[Sourdough]

I disagree, the people have the desire to win, the politicians, and big business don't.  Look at how much money Rathion, Haliburton, McDonald Dougles, and other defense contractors have made.  They don't want to see an end to the war, it's too profitable for them.

[john keyes]

If the indians had a had 10/22s they would a wiped each other out as well as all the buffalo before we even got here.


Regards,

Marlon Brando will NOT be happy about that comment

[Sourdough]

While a .22RF would have been good, it does have it's limitations.  Would not have wanted to try and kill a Buffalo with one.  Or a Grizzly, Black Bear, or try and repel an Indian Attack.  Yes the Brits would have been a piece of cake, marching in straight lines and not breaking file under attack.

[mcwoodduck]

I often thought a 10/22 would have caused all kinds of Havoc.  Even an H&R handi 12 ga would have been the Assault gun of the day.
The 22 LR could have caused more wounded and that may have ended the war either way, sooner.  Remember the manufacturing was in England and the Colonies only really had cottage industry at the time.  And if anyone in that war had a self contained round it would have been them.  A Scottish minister is the one that made the percussion cap in the early 1800's
But to run 85+ years into the future you had the similar battle styles of shoulder to shoulder and the 44 Henry rimfire was intorduced.
A 22 LR's bigger brother and the 56-56 Spencer.
Both were repeating arms and did make some impact on the battle feild but did not swing a battle. ( well until the indians used them against Custer but there were other factors than just the rifles)
Also as the war went on arms were captured and used on both sides.
I really think if they had used the power of the rifle and had made up companies of rifle men had them 150 yards away and let one rank shoot, fall back 25 yards and reline and load and wait for the next line to fall back through them would have been mre effective and have the rest of the army waiting with the loaded muskets.  Allow the rifle men to fall back through the muskeet companies and start to load, shoot and advance.  much like the british army did in the Square.
I say 150 yards as the rifle could still have hit the British line but the Brown bess could not accuratly return fire.
The brits did bring a rifle over and it was a neat breach loader.  The Baker.  But few of them were able to match the amount of rifles the colonists had.  (some say that the Baker is where C. Sharps got the idea for his falling block designed rifles)

[pastorp]

We must remember: he who wins gets to write the history books. 

Concerning native americans and their ineraction among other tribes as well as the whites a more reliable source is their own history. Which is mostly oral until recient times. I don't believe we get a true picture just listening to either side. But if we consider both sides we find that as it usually is, the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

Regards,

[mirage1988]

Pastorp-
I saw a t-shirt years ago (before PC) that showed on indian on horseback holding a compound bow over his head in a victory pose with the caption "what if?"

 That was all I meant, and tried to explain it was just in humor.

[Swampman]

Having used smoothbore muskets for years I can tell you that they are pretty accurate.  I've out shot many rifleman out to 70 yards.

[pastorp]

No problem from me mirage, were all just sharing our thoughts.

John Keyes, The same comment would hold true in europe, asia, or anywhere during the stone age. JMO

Regards,

[Elijah Gunn]

We'll never know how much the .22LR would have speeded up our winning the 1st revolution, but if there is a second revolution we will all get to see how effective it can really be in combat.
A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 !

[Plainsman]

I remember reading and discussing the fact that it was suggested by none other than Benjamin Franklin that the Continental Army should be armed with bows and arrows!!!  I think the firepower there would have easily been as effective as the same army armed with .22LR's.  Imagine volleys of arrows raining down on the Redcoats!!!  I believe the rate of fire for volley fire with bows is about 12 arrows per minuted!

[Swampman]

The reason the idea was abandoned is that military archers were raised from birth for the job.  A novice can't hit anything with a bow.

[Plainsman]

Being an archer and bowhunter with traditional equipment myself, I beg to differ with the fact that they needed to be trained from birth.  I have trained novices in very little time with traditional equipment and if firing in flights and volleys, I wouldn't stand downrange of a group of novices on the first day!  Let alone consider they'd be firing at RANKS of troops as well!!  Precise accuracy isn't necessary in that scenario, just like shooting smoothbores in ranks!  Chances are they wouldn't even hit the soldier they were aiming at if shooting 100yards and in smoke!!

Here's more from BF:
"Franklin believed the bows and arrows were more efficient than guns. He wrote to an major-general in the US army saying that bows and arrows were better because:"

Benjamin Franklin wrote:


      1. Because a man may shoot as truly with a bow as with a common musket.
      2. He can discharge four arrows in the time of charging and discharging one bullet.
      3. His object is not taken from his view by the smoke of his own side.
      4. A flight of arrows seen coming upon them terrifies and disturbs the enemy's attention to his business.
      5. An arrow sticking in any part of a an puts him hors de combat until it is extracted.
      6. Bows and arrows are more easily provided everywhere than muskets and ammunition.

[DalesCarpentry]

I remember reading and discussing the fact that it was suggested by none other than Benjamin Franklin that the Continental Army should be armed with bows and arrows!!!  I think the firepower there would have easily been as effective as the same army armed with .22LR's.  Imagine volleys of arrows raining down on the Redcoats!!!  I believe the rate of fire for volley fire with bows is about 12 arrows per minuted!

Now I do find this interesting. Dale

[mechanic]

Can you imagine the look of surprize on the Brit's face if the boys had all opened up with semi 22's?  Heck yea it would have turned the tide sooner.  Washington could have won that war in one or two battles. 

There have been a heap of people killed with 22's, 25's, and all those little bitty guns that won't kill nothin'