List,
At the 20th annual meeting of the Continental Line on February 16th 2008 in
Plymouth
Meeting, PA, a proposed ammendment to the Safety Guildlines that would require
rifles to
have flash guards was brought to the floor, discussed ( without any opposing
commentary)
and voted upon later in the day. The proposal unanimously passed the the vote
with no
further discussions or objections.

As written:

Amendments to Continental Line Safety Regulations

Continental Line Musket and Rifle Inspection Checklist
Page 6 the lock #9
All muskets must have a well-fitting and tight metal flashguard.
To be changed to
All muskets and rifles must have well-fitting and tight metal flashguard.


If a rifleman reports for safety inspection without a flashguard he will no
longer be asked to
take the end of the line. They will not be allowed to field during the battle.

---

To: Revrifles@yahoogroups.com
From: jwfilipski@...
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:08:16 +0000
Subject: [Revrifles] Continental Line Safety Regulation Update-Flashguards

List,
At the 20th annual meeting of the Continental Line on February 16th 2008 in Plymouth
Meeting, PA, a proposed ammendment to the Safety Guildlines that would require rifles to
have flash guards was brought to the floor, discussed ( without any opposing commentary)
and voted upon later in the day. The proposal unanimously passed the the vote with no
further discussions or objections.

As written:

Amendments to Continental Line Safety Regulations

Continental Line Musket and Rifle Inspection Checklist
Page 6 the lock #9
All muskets must have a well-fitting and tight metal flashguard.
To be changed to
All muskets and rifles must have well-fitting and tight metal flashguard.

If a rifleman reports for safety inspection without a flashguard he will no longer be asked to
take the end of the line. They will not be allowed to field during the battle.

Just realized that Yahoo Groups may not have placed my signature on message 147
That was Me
Jim W. Filipski

--- In Revrifles@yahoogroups.com, "liv18thc" <jwfilipski@...> wrote:
>
> List,
> At the 20th annual meeting of the Continental Line on February 16th 2008 in
Plymouth
> Meeting, PA, a proposed ammendment to the Safety Guildlines that would require
rifles
to
> have flash guards was brought to the floor, discussed ( without any opposing
commentary)
> and voted upon later in the day. The proposal unanimously passed the the vote
with no
> further discussions or objections.
>
> As written:
>
> Amendments to Continental Line Safety Regulations
>
> Continental Line Musket and Rifle Inspection Checklist
> Page 6 the lock #9
> All muskets must have a well-fitting and tight metal flashguard.
> To be changed to
> All muskets and rifles must have well-fitting and tight metal flashguard.
>
>
> If a rifleman reports for safety inspection without a flashguard he will no
longer be
asked to
> take the end of the line. They will not be allowed to field during the battle.
>

Also that should have read "the 21st Annual Meeting of the Continental Line"

Sorry
Jim

Glad to hear it Jim. Good Job.
Bob

Hi Everyone,

One other aspect of this decision on flashguards that should be kept in mind is
that, as with the other safety changes involving artillery, both are in effect
for a one year trial period and shall be considered again at next year's meeting
as either a permanent change or not.  This "probationary" period is meant to
allow time to observe the rule changes in practice and identify any
unintentional consequences of the changes.

Personally speaking, I support the flashguard decision and expect it will work
out fine.  However, if unforeseen issues arise as a result of the new
requirement of flashguards on rifles, they should be brought to the Continental
Line's notice and given due consideration prior to next year's final vote.

Take Care,

Mike Cecere  7th VA

...and while you're at it next year for the final vote
might as well go on and mandate safety goggles - no,
check that, make it a full face shield, respirators
(wouldn't want to inhale that carcinogenic black
powder smoke), kevlar gloves (to avoid flint nicks on
my wittle fingers), double ear protection - plugs AND
muffs (to damper the deafening musket volleys and
cannon fire). Oh, and JUST in case SOMEONE happens to
load a ball, it should be mandatory that EVERYONE wear
a full ballistic armor system under their clothes. Now
if we could just get Fugawee and Robert Land to make
steel toe shoes, we could be protected from
anything....
It's obvious we need all the protection we can get,
because it's apparent reason and common sense, let
alone proper training, is severely lacking. Otherwise
we wouldn't need ANY of these excessive regulations.
Looks like immersion events will be the only way to go
from here on out.
Mike Strausner.



      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Hi Mike,
It's Jim here: I very much value your opinon. But what the hell are you trying
to say?  You
realize that if the guys that refuse to use flash guards happen to go to a
emersion event
they would probably die some time within 24 hrs! "It is just the mind set here".
I have seen
your portrayl and it is very impressive and to have you with us at an event
approaches
"honorable" BUT if you are dealing with the CL or any other of the big 3 you
have to realize
that there are rules that must be followed. Please check on the character of the
participants rather on the body that makes the rules.
Most respectful:
I remain,
JWF


--- In Revrifles@yahoogroups.com, mike strausner <rovin1wolf@...> wrote:
>
> ...and while you're at it next year for the final vote
> might as well go on and mandate safety goggles - no,
> check that, make it a full face shield, respirators
> (wouldn't want to inhale that carcinogenic black
> powder smoke), kevlar gloves (to avoid flint nicks on
> my wittle fingers), double ear protection - plugs AND
> muffs (to damper the deafening musket volleys and
> cannon fire). Oh, and JUST in case SOMEONE happens to
> load a ball, it should be mandatory that EVERYONE wear
> a full ballistic armor system under their clothes. Now
> if we could just get Fugawee and Robert Land to make
> steel toe shoes, we could be protected from
> anything....
> It's obvious we need all the protection we can get,
> because it's apparent reason and common sense, let
> alone proper training, is severely lacking. Otherwise
> we wouldn't need ANY of these excessive regulations.
> Looks like immersion events will be the only way to go
> from here on out.
> Mike Strausner.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
> Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>

Mike S & The List,
I must apologize for my last post as it was a "knee jerk" reaction  to your
post. I do
understand where you are coming. That is not what I disagree upon. It is just
that when a rule
has been in place for 20 years plus dealing with an important safety issue
(Muskets with flash
guards) and a situation of safety keeps appearing due to the fact that rifles
have been omited
from this rule that is why it should change. As it stands now 90 percent of the
rifles are flash
protected at an event ( maybe even more) The few that aren't are starting to
become a
problem. This high number of guarded rifles is probably why there hasn't been a
serious
accident over the years but as time goes by the chances get better. We can't
change where
our society is at. It is lawsuit happy to be sure. The flashguard protects the
rifle user as it
does the person along side him. Big national events yes, are much different then
immersions.
At a national it is like the first day of deer season...everybody is out. It
take a special type
soldier  to do immersion. .... a higher level of knowledge and experience. I
think the chance
of an accident is greater at the national.
Jim

...and while you're at it next year for the final vote
might as well go on and mandate safety goggles - no,
check that, make it a full face shield, respirators
(wouldn't want to inhale that carcinogenic black
powder smoke), kevlar gloves (to avoid flint nicks on
my wittle fingers), double ear protection - plugs AND
muffs (to damper the deafening musket volleys and
cannon fire). Oh, and JUST in case SOMEONE happens to
load a ball, it should be mandatory that EVERYONE wear
a full ballistic armor system under their clothes. Now
if we could just get Fugawee and Robert Land to make
steel toe shoes, we could be protected from
anything....
It's obvious we need all the protection we can get,
because it's apparent reason and common sense, let
alone proper training, is severely lacking. Otherwise
we wouldn't need ANY of these excessive regulations.
Looks like immersion events will be the only way to go
from here on out.
Mike Strausner.

__________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Apparently the majority of the people feel the rule was needed. As for
me I remember an incident where one rifleman with a flash guard was
flashed by another without one. Apparently he didn't feel he got him
good enough the first time so he moved closer and got him again. This
time he did a good job. Did he mean to do it. I doubt it. He just
wasn't paying attention to what he was doing in relationship to his
surroundings.  Did he care. Judging by his actions afterwards, I doubt
that also. He was doing his thing and the hell with anyone else. Hence
a jusified safety rule.

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the kind compliments. My apologies for
being a bit rash and sarcastic, but I was compelled to
run off there to vent a little. In one of the first
posts I made on this group site I went through a
rather lengthy explanation of why I feel flash guards
should not be "required equipment". I'm not going to
try again to explain here now; suffice it to say I
disagree with the mandatory flashguard provision.
Given that I feel flashguards CAN be more detrimental
to the user himself than that of an unguarded firelock
to either side of him, I think there are other ways to
resolve any "safety concerns" that a "no flashguards"
situation presents, i.e. thorough familiarization with
and training of how to volley fire in closed
formations without flashguards and with minimal risk
of injury, etc, etc.
I don't care of the arguments many have given that the
addition of a flashguard to any rifle, or any firelock
for that matter, is possible. The fact remains that
for many arms one cannot be added without defacing or
changing the mechanics of the lock to one degree or
another, however slight. I fell in love with
flintlocks with the first one I bought with lawn
mowing earnings at age 12, 30 years ago. I love the
"look" and mechanics of the rifle I intend to use as
an Associator just as it is, and it pains me to know
that if I want to use it at certain events I will have
to make the necessary modifications to fit a guard. To
some, perhaps, that's not a big deal. It is to me. I
bought that rifle, simple and plain and common as it
is, because I thought it was beautiful. It's a fine
shooter and has a fast lock, but I bought it mainly
because to me it's beautiful. No matter how you spin
it, it won't be beautiful with a flashguard.
I think the main reason it touched a nerve is that we,
the 1st Pa Bn, have recently changed our focus and
name and are now doing primarily Pennsylvania
Associator's/Militia; we intend to resign from the
BAR, and have been seriously considering joining the
Continental Line to keep open the avenue of doing big
events.
As to your comment:
<"You realize that if the guys that refuse to use
flash guards happen to go to a emersion event they
would probably die some time within 24 hrs! "It is
just the mind set here">
I'm sorry but I don't understand what your meaning is.
We've done several immersion events in the past few
years. We've done them without flashguards; we used
rammers, fixed bayonets, patrolled at night, fought at
night, and so on. No one died within 24 hours. No one
died at all as a result. I don't even know of any
injuries period. There are those who say we've just
been "lucky" so far. I like to think that no one has
died or been seriously hurt because we train to do
things that way. We ensure that every participant
realizes that we will be doing things those ways, and
that they'll be expected to be trained and prepared to
act accordingly. We ensure that they realize this is
not a game; we are not playing. Short of being
half-starved and naked, and using real lead, these
immersion events we plan are the real deal. I can also
assure you that everyone who participates in these
events realizes that what we are doing COULD be
hazardous, but are willing to take the calculated
risks and do all in their power to minimize the
potential for serious incident, all to the end of
participating in a realistic, memorable and enriching
experience of 18th century life.
At any rate, I've been quite running on here. I
realize that everyone is entitled to an opinion, mine
is obviously in the grand minority.
I truly understand you when you say that there are
rules, and to participate they will have to be adhered
to. We will. Not without grumbling, but we will.
Again, my apologies for rash thoughts put into words.
I look forward to meeting again somewhere down the
road.
YHS,
Mike Strausner





      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. 
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Based on the e-mail strings on this site, other sites, off-line, and
numerous conversations with other riflemen and scouts, my sense of this
issue is that, although a very few riflemen reenactors may actually object
to installing flash guards on their rifles (maybe because they feel that
they are not historically accurate!? Or they simply just don't want to put a
flash guard on it, which is their choice, and a conscience decision
resulting in their not being able to participate in CL battle reenactments,
which doesn't seem to be a biggie for most I've talked to!), I believe the
majority fear that once the flash guards are installed, there will be no
reason to keep Line commanders from putting the riflemen in a line formation
along side the Linemen.  Hence, I believe their greatest fear is that
"Line-oriented" rifle commanders and Line commanders will treat the riflemen
like Line troops and have them marching into battle and standing out in the
open and in line with the Line troops and firing volleys like Linemen
instead of fighting like riflemen.  No true rifleman or scout wants to be
put in that position.  While no one in their right mind can argue with the
safety of the flash guard, especially in this day and time when anti-gun
laws are on the increase, it is understandable that reenactors that take
their persona as riflemen and scouts seriously, do not want to be treated
like "Linemen with rifles"!

I humbly offer this observation/opinion hoping not to offend anyone but to
simply put his out for comment and discussion.

I would like to hear your thoughts/opinions on this matter.

YMH&OS,

Ron Phelps - 7th Virginia Regiment

Based on the e-mail strings on this site, other sites, off-line, and
numerous conversations with other riflemen and scouts, my sense of this
issue is that, although a very few riflemen reenactors may actually object
to installing flash guards on their rifles (maybe because they feel that
they are not historically accurate!? Or they simply just don't want to put a
flash guard on it, which is their choice, and a conscience decision
resulting in their not being able to participate in CL battle reenactments,
which doesn't seem to be a biggie for most I've talked to!), I believe the
majority fear that once the flash guards are installed, there will be no
reason to keep Line commanders from putting the riflemen in a line formation
along side the Linemen. Hence, I believe their greatest fear is that
"Line-oriented" rifle commanders and Line commanders will treat the riflemen
like Line troops and have them marching into battle and standing out in the
open and in line with the Line troops and firing volleys like Linemen
instead of fighting like riflemen. No true rifleman or scout wants to be
put in that position. While no one in their right mind can argue with the
safety of the flash guard, especially in this day and time when anti-gun
laws are on the increase, it is understandable that reenactors that take
their persona as riflemen and scouts seriously, do not want to be treated
like "Linemen with rifles"!

I humbly offer this observation/opinion hoping not to offend anyone but to
simply put his out for comment and discussion.

I would like to hear your thoughts/opinions on this matter.

YMH&OS,

Ron Phelps - 7th Virginia Regiment

Dear Fellow Riflemen,

I'm very glad that the topic of tactics has come up as I think that once we come
to a consensus about tactics we'll be in real good shape to function as a
cohesive rifle corps.

My view on rifle behavior and tactics has evolved a lot over the last year.  My
research on riflemen convinced me awhile ago that aside from the problems
General Washington had with rifle discipline in Boston in Aug.-Sept. 1775, the
conduct/behavior and expectations of continental riflemen were similar to line
troops.  I believe riflemen paraded, marched, stood guard, did fatigue duty and
followed orders like the rest of the soldiers.

So in terms of how we riflemen conduct ourselves as individual soldiers, I
think, unless the event is one in which we should be militia/ or frontier
riflemen, or riflemen of 1775, we need to be disciplined soldiers.

This does not mean, however, that our tactics should be structured in a way that
mimics continental light infantry troops/tactics.  I am of the strong opinion
that rifle tactics are largely unique to riflemen and that the light infantry
tactics employed by the light infantry of Wayne and LaFayette are not proper for
riflemen!!!  To put it bluntly, such tactics are too structured and line
oriented!

Last year, I had the pleasure to command a combined rifle corps on Sunday at
Jerusalem Mill and at Saratoga, and in both instances the riflemen fought in a
loose skirmish order under the direction of officers.  In both cases we moved in
a coordinated (and open) fashion and harassed the hell out of the British.  You
often read accounts of riflemen "galling" the flank of the enemy, well, we did
exactly that at both Jerusalem Mills and Saratoga, and we did it with far less
structure than line troops.

My friends Jim and Bruce suggest that there may be occasions when an event
coordinator or commander will expect the rifles to fight more like line troops. 
Well, I think that, unless there is some historical or logistical reason to do
this, we ought to resist this request on historical principles.  Frankly, I have
rarely seen an event coordinator tell riflemen they have to fight like line
troops for a battle.

In fact, I've been to enough officers meetings to know that when an event
coordinator says he wants the riflemen to "begin the battle", they never specify
HOW (in terms of specific tactics) to kick it off.  They leave the tactics (ie.
how we actually deploy and how we fight (open or closed order, etc.) to us. 
What I'm trying to say is that I have NEVER been in a meeting in which the event
coordinator said he wanted the rifles to deploy and/or fight like line troops,
either closed or open.  It's usually much closer to, "The rifles will enter the
field and kick things off."  This kind of instruction suggests that we, as
riflemen, are free to interpret the riflemen the way they should be interpreted,
as skirmishers and advance/flank troops.

Yes, I realize that there are a few battles, like Monmouth or Camden, in which
the rifles were not involved, and thus, in those cases, riflemen should not
expect to fight as riflemen.  But in most of our events the way  riflemen deploy
onto the field and the way we fight, is largely left to us.  And as it sometimes
occurs that we find ourselves fighting along with, and often beside, light
infantry troops like the 3rd PA, I think it is even more important (for the
public's sake) that we fight as riflemen and not as light infantry troops so the
public will see the difference between us.

So when my friend Jim says that there may be times in which,

"We are trying to give the appearance of line going out on the field when the
situation is called for..."

Or my friend Bruce says,

"...there will be times when we have to bite the bullet and form as a Line...."


I have to ask, WHY?  I mean, except for a situation like Monmouth, where there
were no riflemen engaged, what historic scenario actually calls for riflemen to
serve/function as line troops?  The answer, of course, is virtually NONE, so if
that is the case, I would expect that there will be very few instances where we
have to "bit the bullet" and fight as line troops.

Again, I recognize that there are a few instances, like Monmouth for historical
reasons, or Trenton for logistical reasons), but I can't think of many other
historical situations where riflemen fought as line troops, and I have rarely
seen an event coordinator specifically tell riflemen that they HAD to fight as
line troops (again, except for situations like Monmouth where the rifles
actually didn't fight).  I would imagine that most event coordinators would
rather see riflemen use skirmish tactics in order to better stand out from the
line troops.

Yes, I accept the idea of marching to and from battle the way we often do, but
our deployment and tactics on the battlefield need to be based on what riflemen
actually did!  And in my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming that riflemen
SKIRMISHED and thus, used skirmish tactics which include, open order deployment
and movement, ( I see this as moving at the quick step by files at trail arms...
not marching onto the field at shoulder arms in close order!) primarily
independent fire instead of volley fire and most importantly, they used whatever
cover was available whenever they had the chance.  Go to the file section of
this list to see my long missive on rifle tactics.

Now, I'm not saying that riflemen should be free to roam and fire as they please
( the Yahoo riflemen that has been described by others).  I have no problem with
keeping all the riflemen in a skirmish line and under the control of an
officer(s) and NCOs (in terms of their placement/position, movement, and even
firing.)  I don't think riflemen should be in the habit of firing in volleys,
but rather, should fire as two man firing teams (using whatever cover is
available).  But they should also follow orders and hold their fire when told
to.

Please note that I am not saying that there will never be a time when riflemen
fight in  two ranks or fire in volley.  I can see the occasional situation in
which the rifles are the only unit available to plug a gap so they are ordered
to do so.  Or the battle didn't involve riflemen so we act more as militia line
troops.  But I think these kind of events are rare!

I've rambled on enough.  Let me conclude by agreeing that whenever possible, we
should consider the historical aspect of the event we are doing and try our best
to guide our conduct by actual historical events.
I'm not sure how this will work with events like Boone's Homestead, but in most
cases, I think it will guide us well.

Good Night Folks,

Mike Cecere  7th VA

Hey Jim,

Sorry for the bouncing back and forth.  It was late last night and I do tend to
get a bit wordy.  I think though, that we are basically in agreement.  I
definitely agree that in battles like Monmouth or Camden, where there were no
rifles involved, we should not expect to be used as rifles.

And I partially agree with you about Brandywine.  If we are re-enacting the main
part of the battle, the Birmingham Meeting House/Plowed Hill fight, then yes, I
know of no accounts of rifles fighting as rifles so we should expect to be used
more like line troops.

But when we do the morning fighting as Maxwell's Light Corps (which was combined
with rifles and muskets) then I think we would be justified in fighting more in
skirmish order.  This part of the battle is often described as a running fight
over five miles.  Over course, at the end, Maxwell made his stand on a hill just
west of the ford, so at that point I'm sure the riflemen were fighting alongside
the muskets.  But we ought to kick off this part of the fight in a skirmish
line.  (In fact, I believe we have in the past).

Of course, we also need to take into account the event site limitations at a
place like Brandywine.  There is only so much room to skirmish / fight and still
have the public view it.  This is why I don't get too worked up about the
tactics of riflemen at Brandywine.  Larry's firing demo prior to the battle
(which I haven't seen yet but have heard descriptions of) sounds very cool and
no doubt helps the public understand the difference between rifles and muskets. 
And like I said above, when we fight the morning part of the battle as Maxwell's
Light Corps we should convince the powers that be to let us fight as
skirmishers, at least when we kick things off.  Once we are driven across the
creek and pushed into the narrow vale, then I perfectly understand the need to
fight as line troops.


So all in all Jim, I think we are pretty much in agreement. :)

Looking at some of the events in which the 7th VA is likely to join other rifle
units in a combined rifle corps, I see:

Boone's Homestead
Newtown (me I hope)
Brandywine
Jerusalem Mill
Battle of the Hook
Trenton

Now, I've already discussed my take on Brandywine, and I mentioned last night
that the logistics of a Trenton fight force the rifles to fight primarily in
line formation.  There's not much one can do about that in downtown Trenton. 
But I think the other events,

Boone's
Newtown
Jerusalem Mill
Battle of the Hook

all lend themselves to excellent opportunities to fight as a large party of
riflemen using open skirmish tactics.

I have recently been honored by Jim Garner and the 1st Virginia to be named the
Rifle Commander for Battle of the Hook, and it is my current understanding that
one of the battles we will fight in Green Spring, which involved a long, three
hour running skirmish in wooded terrain prior to the big confrontation between
Gen. Wayne and Cornwallis.

So for that action, and probably the tactical, we should be able to do plenty of
skirmishing.  I hope/expect, that similar arrangements will be made at Boone's
and Jerusalem Mill, two outstanding sites with excellent terrain (wooded and
broken) to skirmish in.  Additionally, the fact that these are generic battles
does not constrain us with a set, historical scenario.


Some of the 7th VA riflemen will also be fighting in some capacity as militia
riflemen at

Guilford Courthouse
Petersburg
Great Bridge

and in all three cases, we will follow the event coordinator's wishes and fight
as they deem necessary (as long as their reasoning is justified).  In each case
the Americans were basically in defensive positions (lines) so none of the three
battles above lends itself to much in the way of movement or rifle skirmish
tactics (although I hear Patrick O' Kelly is coming up with something near for
Guilford and the Sunday morning tactical is in a heavily wooded spot and a ton
of fun.

I have to run for now, but like I said earlier, it seems to me that we are very
much in agreement in the direction we are headed, and I am very excited about
the coming year.

See you in the field.

Mike Cecere  7th VA

Hey Jim,

Sorry for the bouncing back and forth. It was late last night and I do tend to get a bit wordy. I think though, that we are basically in agreement. I definitely agree that in battles like Monmouth or Camden, where there were no rifles involved, we should not expect to be used as rifles.

And I partially agree with you about Brandywine. If we are re-enacting the main part of the battle, the Birmingham Meeting House/Plowed Hill fight, then yes, I know of no accounts of rifles fighting as rifles so we should expect to be used more like line troops.

But when we do the morning fighting as Maxwell's Light Corps (which was combined with rifles and muskets) then I think we would be justified in fighting more in skirmish order. This part of the battle is often described as a running fight over five miles. Over course, at the end, Maxwell made his stand on a hill just west of the ford, so at that point I'm sure the riflemen were fighting alongside the muskets. But we ought to kick off this part of the fight in a skirmish line. (In fact, I believe we have in the past).

Of course, we also need to take into account the event site limitations at a place like Brandywine. There is only so much room to skirmish / fight and still have the public view it. This is why I don't get too worked up about the tactics of riflemen at Brandywine. Larry's firing demo prior to the battle (which I haven't seen yet but have heard descriptions of) sounds very cool and no doubt helps the public understand the difference between rifles and muskets. And like I said above, when we fight the morning part of the battle as Maxwell's Light Corps we should convince the powers that be to let us fight as skirmishers, at least when we kick things off. Once we are driven across the creek and pushed into the narrow vale, then I perfectly understand the need to fight as line troops.

So all in all Jim, I think we are pretty much in agreement. :)

Looking at some of the events in which the 7th VA is likely to join other rifle units in a combined rifle corps, I see:

Boone's Homestead
Newtown (me I hope)
Brandywine
Jerusalem Mill
Battle of the Hook
Trenton

Now, I've already discussed my take on Brandywine, and I mentioned last night that the logistics of a Trenton fight force the rifles to fight primarily in line formation. There's not much one can do about that in downtown Trenton. But I think the other events,

Boone's
Newtown
Jerusalem Mill
Battle of the Hook

all lend themselves to excellent opportunities to fight as a large party of riflemen using open skirmish tactics.

I have recently been honored by Jim Garner and the 1st Virginia to be named the Rifle Commander for Battle of the Hook, and it is my current understanding that one of the battles we will fight in Green Spring, which involved a long, three hour running skirmish in wooded terrain prior to the big confrontation between Gen. Wayne and Cornwallis.

So for that action, and probably the tactical, we should be able to do plenty of skirmishing. I hope/expect, that similar arrangements will be made at Boone's and Jerusalem Mill, two outstanding sites with excellent terrain (wooded and broken) to skirmish in. Additionally, the fact that these are generic battles does not constrain us with a set, historical scenario.

Some of the 7th VA riflemen will also be fighting in some capacity as militia riflemen at

Guilford Courthouse
Petersburg
Great Bridge

and in all three cases, we will follow the event coordinator's wishes and fight as they deem necessary (as long as their reasoning is justified). In each case the Americans were basically in defensive positions (lines) so none of the three battles above lends itself to much in the way of movement or rifle skirmish tactics (although I hear Patrick O' Kelly is coming up with something near for Guilford and the Sunday morning tactical is in a heavily wooded spot and a ton of fun.

I have to run for now, but like I said earlier, it seems to me that we are very much in agreement in the direction we are headed, and I am very excited about the coming year.

See you in the field.

Mike Cecere 7th VA

---

To: Revrifles@yahoogroups.com
From: bccparifle@...
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:57:04 -0800
Subject: RE: [Revrifles] Re: Continental Line Safety Regulation Update-Flashguards

Hi Ron and Liste,

 

You are absolutely right about a Rifleman not wanting to be considered a Lineman.  I do not either.  But it is fact that Rifle units did Parade in formation some of the time.  It was imperative that all troops look their best in order for Congress to have more support, financially as well as getting more men to join the armies.  It was true that Washington did not even like the Rifles inasmuch that a good many Rifle Companies were stripped of their Rifles and were given muskets.  To be realistic, maybe we should portray that type of Rifle Corp. when the event warrants it.

 

Jim F. said it well when he noted that there will be times when we have to bite the bullet and form as a Line and that we will change to an open order when the opportunity arises. And it will most of the time.

 

A simple flash guard installation will not, and I repeat, will not cause a Line Officer to force you join the Line.  They understand that, I am sure.

 

We, as Rifleman, must stand together and get noticed.  The work the Rifle commanders have put forth successfully over the last several years have been noticed.  If we start making a ruckus now, that work will be lost and our reputation will be knocked down a few levels.  I don't think any of us want that to happen.  Let us work together, get better in what we do and we will continue to be noticed as a viable force in our community. 

 

Regards,

 

Bruce

 

Ron Phelps <ronphelps11@cox.net> wrote:

Based on the e-mail strings on this site, other sites, off-line, and
numerous conversations with other riflemen and scouts, my sense of this
issue is that, although a very few riflemen reenactors may actually object
to installing flash guards on their rifles (maybe because they feel that
they are not historically accurate!? Or they simply just don't want to put a
flash guard on it, which is their choice, and a conscience decision
resulting in their not being able to participate in CL battle reenactments,
which doesn't seem to be a biggie for most I've talked to!), I believe the
majority fear that once the flash guards are installed, there will be no
reason to keep Line commanders from putting the riflemen in a line formation
along side the Linemen. Hence, I believe their greatest fear is that
"Line-oriented" rifle commanders and Line commanders will treat the riflemen
like Line troops and have them marching into battle and standing out in the
open and in line with the Line troops and firing volleys like Linemen
instead of fighting like riflemen. No true rifleman or scout wants to be
put in that position. While no one in their right mind can argue with the
safety of the flash guard, especially in this day and time when anti-gun
laws are on the increase, it is understandable that reenactors that take
their persona as riflemen and scouts seriously, do not want to be treated
like "Linemen with rifles"!

I humbly offer this observation/opinion hoping not to offend anyone but to
simply put his out for comment and discussion.

I would like to hear your thoughts/opinions on this matter.

YMH&OS,

Ron Phelps - 7th Virginia Regiment

Bruce C. Cobb
Commander, 5th Pa Reg't Rifles, Oldham's Co., Church's Co.

Captain, Washington Crossing Boat Crew

"Adopted member", Glover's Reg't, Marbleheader, 14th Continental

Member, Moland House, Warwick Twp Historical Society

Treasurer, Historical Society of Lower Southampton Twp .

Pa Freemason, Harry A.Houseman Lodge #717, WM

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Hey Larry,

Bravo!  I support everything you wrote and look forward to serving under you at
Boone's Homestead and beyond.  As it is likely that virtually all of the events
in which we combine the rifle units into one rifle corps will be ones in which
we portray continental riflemen, I completely agree that we need to act as a
"disciplined" unit, both in and out of camp.  Simply put, that means we follow
orders in a soldierly manner.

When it comes down to it we're really only talking about a few large events a
year in which we actually combine forces.  For those riflemen who prefer a more
independent minded / frontier/militia or early war rifle persona, there are
still plenty of events available to portray this kind of rifleman.  In fact, it
could be argued that the militia riflemen at Green Spring ( which will
reportedly be one of the battles for this October's Battle of the Hook ) were
probably less disciplined than Daniel Morgan's Rifle Corps.

But that is something to consider down the road.

I feel that we are all generally on the same page here in terms of rifle 
tactics and impressions, at least for the upcoming events in which we combine
forces.  Now it's time to focus our energy on forming an outstanding rifle corps
for Boone's Homestead !  Let's show the rest of the hobby and the public just
how useful and important riflemen can be!

So again Larry, I think everything you've said is perfectly reasonable and is
something I wholeheartedly support.

Cheers,

Mike Cecere  7th VA

Mr. Gorecki and Fellow Patriots in the Cause of Liberty,

 

2007 was my first year as a re-enactor so I am sure some of the old timers will dismiss this missive.

 

Regardless, a few things must needs be spoken -

 

First, it was a privilege to serve under Mr. Gorecki at several events.  Why - for a lot of reasons, but primarily he had safety as a first priority and secondly he actually tried to TEACH us something.  (Also, he didn't take his saber to us during some of our mess-ups under fire - joke!)

 

I was at Bordentown, in the woods on that Saturday, and observed first hand the risks of not having a flash guard.  Shortly after that I managed to get a flash guard and took my rifle apart and attached it.  You have to look close to even see it's there.  During one on one demonstrations or living history events, if asked I just tell people it's a safety feature.  No tourist, student, visitor, or history buff has yet to dress me down for not being "authentic".  I for one support your position on flash guards. 

 

Since Brandywine I have endeavored to improve my understanding of the order and drill, rifleman or not.  I am not well versed enough to enter the "what's authentic for riflemen" discussion, but everything I do read indicates that it was discipline that played a major part in saving the Continental Army from defeat - besides the French. It was the undisciplined Americans that the English were so derisive of.

 

So I commend Mr. Gorecki for trying to reach a reasonable position on the use of riflemen in events to accommodate the feedback from some of those who participate. The riflemen need to be accommodating too. If we were all that authentic we would be marching the hundreds of miles to get to an event without shoes, in rags for clothes, and be near starvation. 

 

Mr. Gorecki, as well as we, are all volunteers and we have all invested a lot into this hobby.  We all do want to have "fun", but fun is like the "pursuit of happiness", it means a lot of different things to different people. For me, part of that "fun" is to honor the memory of those who sacrificed much for the Cause and possibly instill in some visitor, student, or onlooker an appreciation for our heritage and the principles on which the Country was founded.  I look forward to trying to do that this year and hope I again will have the opportunity to serve under Mr. Gorecki and with my fellow riflemen, both in the 7th and the other Units we have been fortunate to be paired with.

 

A Private of No Consequence,

 

Warren Deal

7th VA

 

---

Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.

Mr. Gorecki and Fellow Patriots in the Cause of Liberty,

 

2007 was my first year as a re-enactor so I am sure some of the old timers will dismiss this missive.

 

Regardless, a few things must needs be spoken -

 

First, it was a privilege to serve under Mr. Gorecki at several events.  Why - for a lot of reasons, but primarily he had safety as a first priority and secondly he actually tried to TEACH us something.  (Also, he didn't take his saber to us during some of our mess-ups under fire - joke!)

 

I was at Bordentown, in the woods on that Saturday, and observed first hand the risks of not having a flash guard.  Shortly after that I managed to get a flash guard and took my rifle apart and attached it.  You have to look close to even see it's there.  During one on one demonstrations or living history events, if asked I just tell people it's a safety feature.  No tourist, student, visitor, or history buff has yet to dress me down for not being "authentic".  I for one support your position on flash guards. 

 

Since Brandywine I have endeavored to improve my understanding of the order and drill, rifleman or not.  I am not well versed enough to enter the "what's authentic for riflemen" discussion, but everything I do read indicates that it was discipline that played a major part in saving the Continental Army from defeat - besides the French. It was the undisciplined Americans that the English were so derisive of.

 

So I commend Mr. Gorecki for trying to reach a reasonable position on the use of riflemen in events to accommodate the feedback from some of those who participate. The riflemen need to be accommodating too. If we were all that authentic we would be marching the hundreds of miles to get to an event without shoes, in rags for clothes, and be near starvation. 

 

Mr. Gorecki, as well as we, are all volunteers and we have all invested a lot into this hobby.  We all do want to have "fun", but fun is like the "pursuit of happiness", it means a lot of different things to different people. For me, part of that "fun" is to honor the memory of those who sacrificed much for the Cause and possibly instill in some visitor, student, or onlooker an appreciation for our heritage and the principles on which the Country was founded.  I look forward to trying to do that this year and hope I again will have the opportunity to serve under Mr. Gorecki and with my fellow riflemen, both in the 7th and the other Units we have been fortunate to be paired with.

 

A Private of No Consequence,

 

Warren Deal

7th VA

 

---

Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living.

---

To: Revrifles@yahoogroups.com
From: ronphelps11@...
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:07:30 -0500
Subject: RE: [SPAM] RE: [Revrifles] Re: Continental Line Safety Regulation Update-Flash guards

Larry, et al,

 

Now that you have sat back, looked over all the comments, and decided to chime in, I have a few humble comments/questions for you and our fellow riflemen,

 

I agree with you and the majority of others on the topic of flash-guards; they are a “no-brainer”, now that it’s “law”, those not willing to comply shall not play, case closed.  It’s a conscience decision on everyone’s part to comply or not.  I, for one, have no problem with flash guards on my rifles at events that require them, especially in these “anti-gun” times, especially as we already have to have them installed for our Colonial Williamsburg events.

 

Larry, I appreciate your pledge to command and portray riflemen in a historically accurate way and applaud your actions to keep event commanders from utilizing our riflemen in a battlefield role not consistent with our persona/interpretation.  I believe this will greatly endear you to the majority of riflemen.  I also believe you will find this key to riflemen participation at CL events and I also believe the numbers of riflemen at CL events will gradually and eventually increase if we feel that someone is standing up for us at the officer’s battle scenario planning meetings and not letting line-oriented officers, ignorant of rifle tactics, use us as Linemen.  Even in battle reenactment scenarios where there were no riflemen actually at the battle, I, along with most of the other riflemen that I have talked to, believe that if the event commanders want riflemen to participate, they are going to have to let riflemen fight like riflemen or my sense of it is that there will continue to be little or no participation by any rifleman that is true to his persona at CL events.  Asking a rifleman to fall in with the line a shoot volleys is comparable to asking Linemen to run tree to tree and fight like a skirmisher!  A true Lineman wouldn’t like being put in that position and neither does a true rifleman!  It has been suggested that, put in that unpleasant position by line-oriented event commanders and/or rifle commanders, maybe the riflemen should “desert”, i.e. run off of the field, when ordered to do something that is not true to our persona, and actually when you stop and think about it, that may be more historically accurate in some scenarios.

 

Marching “properly to and from the battle and performing as soldiers at all times” may be something that the few riflemen up North practice but, based on my own experience and the numerous e-mails I have read lately on and off this site, it appears that it isn’t something that the majority of riflemen in the South and West practice often if at all (especially our Company of Riflemen and Scouts that tend to mostly portray the early western Virginia colonial frontiersmen recruited by Dan Morgan as part of his original Rifle Company), so, try as we may (for those that choose to participate in CL events at all), we will probably do very poorly at marching and drilling (however, members of our Line company that choose to show up and participate in CL events as riflemen may do better at it, after all they are simply Linemen dressed as riflemen/militia and they practice drilling and marching all the time!)  My real question is this; instead of marching onto the field in a line formation at CL events, why aren’t the riflemen playing their historically accurate role of scouts for the army, i.e., forming forward scouts in front of the main body of the army, flanking scouts on the flanks of the main body, and rear scouts at the rear of the main body!?  Please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this is how Dan Morgan and other successful period rifle commanders deployed their riflemen when moving with a large body of mixed troops.  Maybe this would keep the riflemen (and the event commanders) happy while letting the riflemen portray historically accurate tactics, show the public how the riflemen actually deployed, and the difference between Line troops and riflemen.  This is something our Company of Riflemen and Scouts do regularly.  Just something to consider; what do you think?

 

In closing, I have one more question, and please don’t take this the wrong way.  Is there some “rotation scheme” as far as assigning the Commander of Rifles at CL events or is it (as it appears to be) always the same one or two fellows every time?  I don’t mean to be offensive to you or any others but don’t you think it is a good idea to “rotate” the rifle corps leadership to give others a chance at leadership and gain experience at commanding a relatively large body or rifle troops at a large event?  There appears to be a number of knowledgeable, experienced, and talented rifle commanders out there.  It is said that a good leader is also a good follower.  Being a past Rifle Company commander, numerous Rev War events coordinator, and colonial woods tactical event coordinator for many years, I have seen the benefit of having new, enthusiastic leaders come up and have a chance at leadership and it has shown that it is always beneficial to them and the unit and helps make them a better leader and grows competent future leadership for the Rev War reenacting community as a whole.  Just a thought.  What do you think?

 

I humbly offer these observations/opinions hoping not to offend anyone but to
simply put these thoughts out for open, honest comment and discussion.

I would like to hear everyone’s thoughts/opinions on these topics.

Sincerely and very respectfully,

I Remain, Sirs, YMH&OS,

Ron Phelps - 7th Virginia Regiment

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

From: Revrifles@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Revrifles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Gorecki
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 6:00 PM
To: revrifles@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [SPAM] RE: [Revrifles] Re: Continental Line Safety Regulation Update-Flashguards

 

To all Riflemen, I have sat back and looked over the past comments by many regarding rifle tactics on the field and the use of flash guards. Now I want to comment. First, Whenever I am placed in command of the rifles at an event; I pledge to do my best to have the riflemen fight in an open order by two man fire teams. Secondly we will use cover if available, whenever possible. There has been times where the battalion commander has ordered the rifle corp to fill in the line and as such we have to do so. I have tried to prevent this from happening by reminding the battalion officer that we are rifles and need to fight in an open order using skirmish tactics. Some times he will allow us to continue to do so, and other times he will not. When this happens it is generally because he has a hole in him line and needs to fill it right away. We may be the closest company to that hole or perhaps the only one not dessimated and as such, we must fill that gap and fire in volley. As commander, I will remind battalion officers at the officers meeting that we need to be allowed to act and fight as rifles whenever possible. We will however, march properly to and from the battle and perform as soldiers at all times. Regarding the flash guards, I will enforce the new safety rule and anyone without a flash guard will not be allowed to take the field until a flash guard has been installed. We can and must all continue to work together on and off of the field to insure our continued respect amongst the battalion officers and overall commander at all the events. I look forward to this campaign season! Regards, Larry Gorecki