The Modern Kentucky Rifle- What is the modern "Patriots' rifle"?

[jad0110]

However, I agree with you that the modern Kentucky rifle is a scoped deer rifle -- the original K.R. was an implement of practicality; a valuable object but closer to mundane than to fetish, and that's how I see a scoped deer ("sniper") rifle.

Nicely said. Pretty much a direct descendant of the K.R.

That being said, the AR is as American as hot dogs, baseball, apple pie and corvettes.

 

[TexAg]

Concur it would be a deer rifle of some ilk. .24 to .30 caliber, lever, bolt or pump, iron sights or scoped. And I believe they are more ubiquitous than EBRs, but maybe not more than shotguns in American households. (As a home inspector, I see shotguns in more houses than any other type of gun)

 

[elChupacabra!]

Surely it must be either the scoped deer rifle or the AR, as most have stated. I don't know which, though.

At the time, the Kentucky Rifle was the ultimate battle implement due to its accuracy, rate of fire notwithstanding. It could be used from superior ranges with great lethality. It was also a commonly held tool in the hands of the Colonists.

Depending on how you look at that, either weapon could fit the bill - the AR as the modern ultimate battle implement, extremely accurate for a mass-produced rifle with a long accurate and even effective (with the right ammunition, like 77gr OTM etc.) range. Plenty of people own ARs - they are (dare I say) the rifle the Founding Fathers would own today if they were alive.

On the other hand, the scoped bolt gun is probably more lethal at range and VERY common in the US, plus its slow rate of fire would more closely match that of the Kentucky Rifle.

The AR, although used by some for competition & hunting, is more of a one-trick-pony (i.e. fighting rifle), whereas the deer rifle is more of a working gun.

I dunno. This is tough. Can I say both?

If not, I think I'm going to cast my lot with the AR. By the time you get to a battlefield, and a MODERN battlefield, I think it is the one you are going to want to have more. Nobody would have traded a Kentucky Rifle for a musket 230 years ago... but today, I bet more would want to trade a deer rifle for an AR than the other way around once the lead really started flying.

Note: I reject AR10s and M1As not based on their performance but on popularity. It would have to be a VERY popular gun to make the cut, and I think only a scoped deer gun or an AR are THAT popular. FWIW, IMHO, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Cosmoline]

the Kentucky Rifle was the most venerable and ubiquitous weapon in the young nation

I've never seen any proof of that claim. In fact the most ubiquitous weapon of the young nation was the scattergun for civilians and the musket for soldiers. A true Kentucky Rifle was extremely expensive and required great skill to make. These weapons were found only among elite hunters and sharpshooters. The same was true for the Hawkens a generation later.

Accordingly, I would say the modern version of the Kentucky rifle would be the .50 BMG sniper rifle. It has vastly more effective range and power than typical civilian rifles and costs well outside the realm most of us can afford. Just as the Kentucky Rifle shocked the Brits with its incredible range and power, the .50 BMG sniper rifle shocks our foes. It's a cut above.

The modern version of the scattergun would be.. the scattergun ;-) A Mossy or Rem. They really do seem to be ubiquitous in much of the nation. Contrary to mythology, this nation was built not with Colt revolvers or fancy expensive rifles but with humble barn guns, crude muskets and fowling pieces. Firearms even poor folk could afford to have their local blacksmith whip up.

 

[MD_Willington]

 

[elmerfudd]

At the time, the Kentucky Rifle was the ultimate battle implement due to its accuracy, rate of fire notwithstanding.

This is just plain false. At the time of the revolution, the Kentucky rifle wasn't even close to the ultimate battle implement. For battlefield use it was a special purpose weapon, much like a bolt action sniper rifle is today and for the exact same reasons. A rifleman armed with a Kentucky rifle could engage targets out to 300 yards or about 3 times the distance of muskets, but in massed battle they were next to useless. A trained soldier could fire a musket at a rate of about 3 to 4 shots per minute. A rifleman on the other hand would be lucky to get off a shot every 2 to 3 minutes and then when it came down to hand to hand, as things usually did in those days, the rifleman had an expensive club while the soldier with a musket had a nearly seven foot long spear.

Nobody would have traded a Kentucky Rifle for a musket 230 years ago...

I'm sure that was true of hunters and a few soldiers serving as riflemen, but if you were a continental soldier fighting in line formations having a rifle instead of a musket would have been suicidal. It would be like a modern day soldier in Iraq trying to clear buildings with a sniper rifle.

 

[telomerase]

The modern equivalents of the Kentucky rifle are the Milan, the TOW II, the FOG missile, etc., and their smaller backups like the Armbrust and other unguided shorter-range cheapos.

In relatively free countries (like Switzerland), these weapons are borne by all citizens. Other nations reserve them for their Janissaries.

 

[taprackbang]

The rifle has to like Col. Sanders' 11 herbs and spices.

 

[bakert]

Well to qualify as a "Kentucky" rifle you can only buy it with a welfare check, you can only fire it without wearing shoes, the recoil has to knock all your teeth out, and the only person who'll come around you when you're playing with your gun is your sister,

yep, and they'll fit right up a fellers A$$ if shoved hard enough

 

[baz]

Another vote here for the ubiquitous "deer rifle." The AR doesn't qualify, IMO, because it is not typically used for game the way the frontier rifles were.

 

[chaim]

but today, I bet more would want to trade a deer rifle for an AR than the other way around once the lead really started flying.

That would have to depend upon the total circumstances:

1) If I was in the Army and could effectively employ small unit tactics in a team with other trained soldiers in close quarters combat, what the "assault rifles" are designed for, I'd prefer the AR 15/M16 to a bolt rifle.

2) In a realistic SHTF situation (riot, temporary loss of order due to natural disaster, etc) I'd want a pistol (concealable), shotgun (powerful), and/or lever rifle (quick shooting without overly attracting attention) in most forseeable situations. Only in some very limited situations would I prefer the AR or AK. I can't think of many of these situations where I'd prefer a bolt rifle, maybe if normal life wouldn't return for a while and I needed a gun to provide food, though I'd be more likely to use my fishing rod for that. So, maybe in that situation I'd rather have the AR over the bolt rifle (it can be used for food or defense, a bolt rifle isn't as good for defense, though, while still having limitations, a "scout" rifle setup might be OK), but both are near the bottom of my list.

3) In the kinds of SHTF that some people seem to fantasize about, invasion where the citizenry need to come out, I would definitely NOT want an AR over a bolt rifle. Individuals or small bands of untrained citizens against a trained army, I don't want to do the toe to toe CQC combat against enemy soldiers that "assault rifles" are designed for (especially using a semi-auto AR against full-auto AK equipped foes). I'm not getting into any sustained firefights against a trained army. I'd want a more stand off weapon- a medium caliber, scoped, bolt rifle which can fire off one round at a few hundred yards in either a very forested or urban environment and I can then get away before they've figured out exactly where it came from (if I wanted to fight and didn't live near a heavily wooded area or a city, I'd move to a city- I'm not fighting it out with a professional army which can call in the big guns in open fields).

 

[King Bear]

The Modern Kentucky Rifle- What is the modern "Patriots' rifle"?

In reality or fantasy?

It is a fantasy vision, that of the noble militiaman with his trusty Kentucky rifle, fighting alongside the valiant Colonial soldier and his musket.

The fantasy today seems to be the noble militiaman with his trusty M1A, taking out "the enemy" at 800 yards (even though the sights are graduated in meters, real 'Mericans only use yards). The "enemy" of course uses those poodle shooter M16s or "commie spray guns" AKA the AK series, and can't touch our lone rifleman.

The next tier down is the noble militiaman with his trusty AR and 'nam era LBE -- because that's what he knows, 'cuz it's what he had in The War.

Then of course you have the sniper elite with their tricked out deer guns, taking only headshots at 1000 yards.


The reality back then was that most had scatterguns or muskets. Because they were practical. NBioth could be loaded with shot for game hunting, or "punkin balls" for big chores. Both were within reach of the average man's finances. Reality is, "the run what they brung".

I image it'd be the same today. You'd have a wider range of firearms since there's so many to choose from. Most likely to show up? Bolt action deer rifles, lever action .30-30s, milsurps of all stripes and ye ol' trusty trombone gun.

As for the "horrendously expensive modern version of the horrendously expensive "kentucky" rifle"? I'd say pick your poison of the custom long range bolt guns. Possibly one chambered in .50BMG or .338 Lapua.

 

[Kalashnikov]

Either the AK or AR. Both are 100% American in spirit; the AK has the ruggedness to endure everything and then some, the AR has the ability to adapt to every situation. Both are as American and patriotic as apple pie, rock 'n roll, and muscle cars.

 

[chaim]

OH, as for the OP:

The Kentucky Rifle was relatively expensive. It was a well made rifle that was pretty expensive in comparison to: 1) the average gun at the time, 2) most people's incomes. It may not have been the highly expensive craftsman's rifles that the nobility in Europe were buying, but it was far from the average person's means. People who needed a highly accurate rifle professionally (guides, professional hunters, frontiersmen, etc.) would have been the primary customers. The average farmer or townsfolk had an old musket or scattergun/shotgun.

So, the AR, AK, lever rifle, and even most bolt rifles would be closer to the muskets than the Kentucky Rifle of the time in that they are much more common. The Kentucky Rifle has more in common with the bolt rifle (it was specialized: a sharpshooter's weapon who hid off to the side of battle and "sniped" the enemy as it was accurate, slow to reload, and it couldn't have a bayonnet mounted). Financially and quality-wise it was kind of towards the top of the middle tier or maybe (from better craftsmen) the bottom of the top tier of weaponry of the time. So, probably a bolt-rifle in the $1500-5000 range or a .50cal would be most equivalent.

 

[Cosmoline]

rifleman on the other hand would be lucky to get off a shot every 2 to 3 minutes

I have to use a big wooden mallet to seat my accuracy loads, the fit is so tight. It's not a fast process.

 

[kmrcstintn]

a dedicated lower capacity hunting rifle chambered between .24 & .35; whether it be lever action, bolt action, pump action, semiautomatic, single shot; whether it wears optics or iron sights; this is the modern ubiquitous rifle; I do not have any military type handguns or longguns; being a sportman, all my stuff is centered around hunting and can be used for defense in a pinch (with one exception...my dedicated snubby CCW revolver)

eg: 12 ga pump shotgun; .25-06 bolt action rifle; .30-30 lever action rifle; .300 wsm bolt action rifle; .357 mag wheelgun; .44 mag wheelgun

 

[armoredman]

The reason I said SKS is due to the huge numbers of them sold over the last 20 years in the US, at very low prices, being very common in all areas in the United States. It is a commie weapon, but ubiquitous, as much as the ol' thutty thutty. I agree that scoped deer rifles are everywhere, too, but the most common rifle is actually the lowly .22lr.

 

[H2O MAN]

M14

kcmarine


The Modern Kentucky Rifle- What is the modern "Patriots' rifle"?
In the days of the American Revolution, the Kentucky Rifle was the most venerable and ubiquitous weapon in the young nation.

It was accurate, well crafted, and designed for the needs of shooters at the time.

The Kentucky Rifle was used for hunting, competition, and of course, for combat. In your opinion, what would be the modern equivalent of the Kentucky Rifle?

The modern equivalent to the KR would be the M14 type rifle.

 

[Mister Peace]

I vote scoped deer rifle as well.
Mind you, that's not my personal choice for the job, but it makes the most sense given the OP

 

[glocksrfugly]

If you are thinking "ubiquitous","venerable", "used for hunting or combat", and can be bought with a welfare check. I submit that the modern Kentucky Rifle is not a rifle but indeed a shotgun. To me the modern Kentucky rifle is either a 12 gauge Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500. Available in most Wal-marts, country hardware stores, sporting goods stores etc. They have the most versatility of ammo and uses. Everything from tiny #12 shot in a light 2 3/4 shell to magnum 1 1/4 oz. slugs in a 3" shell. A good slug shooter can reliably hit deer or man sized targets at up to 75 yards. Yeah I know thats not great distance but certainly enough for hunting or defense. There is never a question of knock down power unless you are going after something like a Lion or a big bear.
Indeed a 870 or a 500 is truly "everymans" gun. If this country ever gets invaded by Evil Hoardes in Dirty Nightshirts it will be largely hard workin' pickup drivin' guys with 12 gauge pumps that put them away.

 

[Z-Michigan]

The closest equivalent, IMHO, would be a bolt action hunting rifle in any of the common centerfire calibers.

Now, the most effective similar option, again IMHO, would be an AR-10 or similar, or an M1A.

 

[For Freedom]

M14


Lock, stock, and barrel for the win.

 

[Mongrel]

ahhh...let's see...

'Nobleman's Rifle' (Kentucky rifle...):

the $2500.00 Steyr Scout Rifle might fit the bill and comes highly recommended as a true 'rifleman's rifle'

Also, the $5000.00 sniper\varmint setups would qualify I guess.

The 'AR types' that some are spending $1500 to $4000 would certainly qualify I'd imagine.

But a working man's long arm most probably would\will be...

30-30 Lever action
Pump shotgun
30-06 scoped bolt gun

and certainly not last and not least the SKS...

As stated above, at least a million of them have probably been imported (900,000 from China alone I believe). Most sold for under $300.00, (actually closer to $150.00). Ammo was and is still cheap and replacement parts are available. It's the cheapest battle-proven military weapon many of us could afford that will keep us 'in the game' if and when we get to that point. When I bought mine for $175, the cheapest beat-up Korean era Garands were over $450. You couldn't touch an AR for less than around $900 (in my area), at least not any that I was aware of at the time. It made sense then and still makes sense today. It's a great non-assault looking semi-auto in it's native dress. Really not much more intimidating than a lever-gun and more on a par with the Garand than the AR family or style of weapons.

I would submit that out of the four 'blue collar' weapons mentioned above, the SKS would be the best choice for the scenario put forth.

 

[funfaler]

It is true that the 'rifled' long arm was rather rare in the Revolutionary War. However, being rare, it played a much larger role than the pure numbers would reveal.

It played a significant part in the siege of Boston, 1775. Battle of Saratoga, and a few other battles.

But what is more important, about this rifle, is the men that used it, and the fact that it was almost entirely utilized by the militia, not the regulars.

The AR15 gives no significant advantage over the 'regulars' of today, however, the M1A/M14 does.

The 'average American' that knows how to use his M1A/M14 to out to 500-600 yards, is a very comparable fella to the 'riflemen' of 1775.

The unique thing about the 1775 Rifleman, was that he was capable of skills that were beyond the "average regular", it was the shooter, not the rifle that made the difference. So, while there have been many good rifles mentioned in this thread, they are all lacking, without a skilled driver.

Even the Americans with the same equipment as the Brits, were more capable than the Brits, because they were more skilled. This is related in the facts and the letters of the Brits after the various battles.

It is the shooter's skill that is key, not the tool.

 

[X-Rap]

SKS, I bought a shopping cart full back in 93 for $69.00 each. Wish I would a got another cart.