The British, various German states to an extent adopted a rifle for issue to some light infantry units. The most 'famous' rifle of the period was undoubtedly the British Baker Rifle, but it was by no means the first rifle produced and employed during the period.
It was preceded by the excellent short German rifle which armed the German jager units in the War of the Revolution in North America (1775-1783). The Americans produced the Kentucky/Pennsylvania long rifle and rifle units were raised, organized and employed in the war with Great Britain and faced the jagers on the battlefield. The Americans respected and feared the German jagers, who were excellent troops and learned that if they employed riflemen, they had to be supported by musket and bayonet armed infantry. The rifles of that war could not be used with bayonets and they were slow to load. That made those units vulnerable to sudden bayonet attacks.
The predecessor to the rifled long arm in the British service is probably the famous Ferguson Rifle, invented by the officer of that name who was killed in action at King's Mountain in 1780. It was an excellent weapon, was a breech loader, expensive to produce and was not adopted.
The question being put is, however, why didn't the French army of the Wars of the Revolution and later the Grande Armee use the rifle and employ rifle-armed light infantry?
French light infantry evolved into an excellent arm and their ability to fight in open order on both offense and defense was part of the French tactical system that evolved from the defeats of the Seven Years War and was the subject of long debates, experimental maneuvers, and finally battlefield necessity.
It should be noted that no army of the period used riflemen better than the British Army and that no army had an overwhelming number of rifle units. The rifles of 1792-1815 were still slow to load, but the British had solved the bayonet problem by designing the Baker Rifle to take a bayonet and designed a specific bayonet for that purpose.
The French did design and manufacture rifle long arms and pistols, but the average French infantryman preferred his musket. Generally rifled weapons, especially long arms were not popular with the French infantryman. The rifled carbine (carabine d'infanterie) that was issued to officers, sergeants and fourriers of voltigeur companies was an excellent weapon, the Model of the Year Twelve. It was relatively short (40 inches overall), weighed 8 pounds, fired a twenty-eight to the pound forced ball, was slow to load, was difficult to load and had no bayonet.
There was also a 'very short' rifled carbine manufactured at Versailles from 1793-1800 and was sometimes carried by officers. Rifled pistols were also manufactured and carried, Coignet is noted as buying and carrying them. There was an armorer in Ratisbon named Kuchenrenter who manufactured rifled pistols, cost 150 francs a pair and used a forced ball.
In the end, for the French, rifled firearms were not adopted for the army or a portion of the army probably because they were just not popular.
References that might be helpful are:
British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1780 by De Witt Bailey.
The Book of the Continental Soldier by Harold Peterson.
Fair enough Zack, we cantankerous old birds need to have to have a referee and I bow to your wisdom. However, it is tiresome whenever you try and add even the most trivial aside to a discussion it is treated by some participants as some sort of ‘game’ that you have to ‘win’. We should welcome diversity and be tolerant of the experiences and differing knowledge bases of others. I find it rather galling to be constantly advised to go and read well thumbed volumes that have sat on my bookshelf for over 30 years! (Who am I trying to kid? More like over 40) This forum is the most knowledgeable one I know of, and assuming you are better read than the other fellow or that you have a better library is a very great folly. I never cease to be amazed by the generosity of forumites and the general absence of hubris. I hope you don’t mind me posting what I was trying to share: I was privileged to visit the pattern room at the old ROF Nottingham, to handle the sealed pattern, with my cotton gloves on, and see the designation on the label. It has also been my great pleasure to have served alongside the descendants of the rifles, and know the pride they take in their distinction to “Fix swords!” rather than bayonets. I was merely trying to extend and widen the discussion a bit. We are very fortunate to have your services in this matter. In my younger day it was ‘self policed’ and normally involved popping out of the mess to the rose garden for a ‘little chat’. We found that after a few iterations that the boundaries of acceptable polite conversation quickly established themselves. I realise that doesn’t work in the virtual world we find ourselves in. I increasingly find myself a person out of my time. Many thanks again for your kind assistance.
Yes, the riflemen had a sword which could be fixed, as the Hirschfänger - at the side of the barrel in case of need, it acted as a fixed side arm - it is by no means a bayonet - a Hirschfänger isn't either, it has a dual function, or better a thrice function, prestige, cutting arm and service like a bayonet - when fixed to the barrel.
In case one just has to look at the sword of the riflemen, the hilt has even a sabre guards, which is not at all usual for a bayonet.
In the simplest terms, if you attach an edged weapon to the end of a longarm as it was designed to do, then it is a bayonet.
Have you seen the book or anything else by De Witt Bailey? Perhaps you should take a look.
Let's not get into a semantics game yet again. We'll have to agree to disagree yet again.
Was the good Mr Bailey a Rifleman? Sword is definitely the description used by them contemporaneously and how their successors have referred to all specie of bayonet ever since.
I believe that the actual nomenclature is a 'sword-bayonet' because of the flat, and not a triangular blade.
It is referred to as a 'sword bayonet' and a 'rifle sword' in British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 by De Witt Bailey. You can find the nomenclature of 'sword Bayonet on page 108 as well as pages 141-142. In 1815 the rifle was fitting with the usual socket bayonet with a triangular blade to replace the sword bayonet and among other models, there was saw-back sword bayonet of 1806 and 1816 mentioned on pages 142 and 143.
Next question.
The Baker rifle was NOT fitted with a bayonet. It was a sword. Ever since, whilst others “Fix bayonets!” Rifles are ordered to “Fix swords!”
Excellent pictures-thanks for posting them.
Here a Grenzscharfschütze - 1792 - from the Artaria series of plates.
and a Doppelstutzen from the 1767 regulations
and here the Stutzen 1779 and 1795 from Ottenfeld und Teuber, seemingly the 1772 model had also the possibility to fix the sword bayonet to the side, while in the 1795 you see the Haubajonett
It should be noted that no army of the period used riflemen better than the British Army and that no army had an overwhelming number of rifle units.It is always difficult to say what army used riflemen best or better, a lot of armies had quite big rifle units and much earlier to the British Army, for example the Austrians drew those Grenzer who were armed with the Doppelstutzen (double barrel, one with a smooth bore barrel and another one with a rifled barrel) together in the French Revolution into two battalions- they had a pike with them to use as rest and in case for self defense, when even the emergency smooth bore barrel was used up), the Prussian Army had the Feld Jäger Regiment - which was increased to 3 battalions before 1806 - they started to use also the Hirschfänger, their side arm to be able to be fitted, like as for the Baker rifle the sword bayonet - to be attached at the side of the barrel in the late of the 18th century.
The Austrians introduced in 1795 a new rifle, they call ist Stutzen, replacing the older ones, the new one had a round barrel at the end and for that a so called Haubajonett could be fixed, this was a long bayonet - which could be fixed in that was that the blade as not protruding from the side - but underneath the barrel in the center and by that wouldn't impair aiming as badly as for the Baker rifle or the Prussian Jäger rifle, when they had to fix it on the side of it.
All armies who had rifled units - used different kind of amunition, the patched ball, cartridges with patched ball and cartridges without patched ball, by that they could fire as quick as a soldier equipped with a smooth bore musket.
In my view the British did not use the units armed with a rifle better than the Prussians, nor the Austrians, nor those of Württemberg, all used them in a similar way.
It is not transparent why Boney did not introduce the rifle (the French did - the original carabiniers were armed with the carabine (rayée) de Versailles) - like for their role as other nations did, maybe they had not those long rifle traditions as the German armies, maybe it was too costly to produce them, maybe they did not fit into Boney's tactical doctrine, a good article hinting some answers can be found in:
Zeitschrift für Kunst, Wissenschaft und Geschichte des Kriegs. Dreizehnter Band, Viertes bis sechstes Heft, Berlin, Posen und Bromberg, 1828
Ueber die Resultate des Scheibenschießens im preußischen Heer, nebst Betrachtungen über die Wirksamkeit des Infanterie- und Büchsenfeuers, pp 227 - 252
I had no time so far to fully digest that very worthwhile article, in case other readers are interested, the journal is available for download.
My initial reaction to why the French didn't adopt it is that the rifle should be seen as a force multiplier (it obviously wasn't enough on its own), it was enormously expensive (according to the accounts of the British Army, about 5 times more), and most importantly, the rate of fire was an issue. It was lethal at 300 yards, but that lethality came from wrapping the bullet in greased leather (sometimes cloth was used though). That expanded in the explosion, allowing the bullet to grip the quarter turn rifling, which gave the bullet the spin that gave it it's accuracy. The trouble was, it was harder to force down the barrel, so whilst a rifleman was reloading, the enemy's skirmishes could close up to effective musket range. My understanding is that Napoleon therefore thought the system too cumbersome and preferred to stick with the musket. It's been a while since I've read into this, mind.