Wow! While I was looking for a date on earliest TN rifles and found a site touting A Short History of The Kentucky Long Rifle.

Inaccuracies include...,
The longrifle was not more accurate than any previous known rifle.
"Muskets" used by colonists were not "so heavy that hunting became a significant chore".
The slang term for the King's Musket was Brown Bess, not "Brown Bessies".
Muskets were known to be accurate against people to 100 yards (Light infantry "expert" marksmen had to hit a target 11 out of 12 times at 90 yards using custom loads for their muskets). Military ammunition meant for rapid reloading reduced that range to 60 yards or less, not the imperfections on the surface of the ball.
Longrifles of .45 caliber shoot bullets that equal 56 to the pound..., not 70 - 120.
The Bess had a 42-46 inch barrel, not a 30 inch barrel.
Longrifles as well as their German counterparts could regularly reach out to 200 yards. Hitting British officers and artillery crewmen at 400 yards or more was astonishing.
The British didn't put spies into Washington's camp when British officers could read about the exploits of Continental Riflemen in Colonial news papers.
Washington didn't dress up his riflemen, or those pretending to be riflemen, in "buckskins". They were dressed in linen hunting shirts or frocks to annoy the British.

The problem with this is there is no way a kid or teen student who reads such an article will know it's drek. So BOYS AND GIRLS, we have our work cut out for us battling such internet nonsense!

A Short History of The Kentucky Long Rifle

LD

Blink... Blink...

I'm speechless...

Craig

I noticed at the bottom of the posting...below the main text, they do not claim the accuracy of what is written.
Sparks

This is not half as worrisome as the wholesale re-writing of history reported in history books used in schools. And the "re-write" is not intended to make the USA look good either. it get worse every year.

Inaccuracies in how they may or may not describe the firearms and clothing of the revolution is simply "salad dressing on the side".

Dan

I don't know. All I know is, that the Kentucky Rifle has one heck of a reputation!!!

To All,

A true sad state of affairs what they are not teaching our children.

25 years ago I drove school bus in NE. WASH. I had K through 12 on the bus... Small school district... At that time, that school district taught World History in Senior year... that is about 12,000 years of history or so.... I am being generous as to time. A senior came up to me and asked a question about WWII. This is the question. "My book said that the 'Battle of Stalingrad' was a very bad battle. That is all it said. How bad was it?" I am not kidding, I asked for the book and he brought it up to me and that was what it said... In 1984. What does it say today, in 2009?. "The Second World war, AKA the 2nd great unpleasentness of the last century was a bad unpleasentness". We can't call them wars anymore, to unpleasent for the children. Must be Politically Correct...

Is there any doubt about what is going on in our schools.

The senior said that they were studing WWII that week... OK, 8 - 12,000 years of history, maybe WWII desserved only a week in the grand scheme of things. But, ya gotta wonder???

In all of my US histories, we ran out of time before we got to WWI!

What I know I learned on my own.

When I went to see "Saving Private Ryan" the only seat left in the theater was next to a 30-something woman. Making conversation, I asked if she knew anyone who was involved in WWII. She said no! I couldn't believe it, but then I was raised on Army bases and EVERYONE'S dad was in WWII. I was flabbergasted and said, "My dad was in WWII!" Quite honestly, with a straight face and no intent at humor, she asked if I got into the theater for free!

Sparks

Hi LD,
I read the link, WOW. I tried to write the author, but he mail is undeliveralbe. I wonder why???LOL

For all we know the author is a teen whose high school class set up the site as a class project. The major problem with the internet (imho) is you have no way of evaluating sources..., sure you know the Wall Street Journal is a good place for business news because they had a rep before going online..., but other locations you have no idea if the author(s) is/are actual historians or bearded I.T. geeks wearing t-shirts, shorts, and sandals, and sitting at a terminal in their mom's basement.

LD

Ah, the worldwide web... Designed to be a highway of useful information, but in reality its generally the home of uncited gobbltigook, unsupportable opinion, hyperbole, and plain ol' stinky fecal material. Makes you wanna shut this off and read a book doesn't it?

Sean

quote:

Makes you wanna shut this off and read a book doesn't it?

Yep, I think I will.

I have a book about the Battle of Waterloo that presents the French, British and the Prussian points of view describing the events of this one day battle. It really opens your eyes that there could be such a discrepancy between the account of the same event when observed and reported by these three differing points of view.
Not so much the information presented to the reader but how that reader is absorbing that information, students must be taught that all information concerning events whether historical or not must be approached with a slight bit of skepticism regardless of the source. Reading just one book about an event can taint your perspective regardless of how well the author has researched his or her subject.
A student of any subject must know one thing before they begin to read about that subject; a book is nothing more than that specific author's point of view of the information he has researched. Creative editing has a way of steering the reader in the direction the author wants to take him. Read as much from different authors concerning a specific event and in that way you can grasp the many differing points of view and accounts of that one specific event.
It's not just the internet we must be wary of.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Crawdad,