Deer Hunters at The Alamo
What effect would deer hunters with modern rifles have had at The Battle of the Alamo?
Would have a platoon-sized group of hunters with modern rifles been able to turn the tide at The Battle of the Alamo? That depends on the particulars of the group. If they shoot like many deer hunters I’ve seen at hunter sight-ins, they likely would have contributed little and been mostly cannon fodder. On the other hand, a group of shooters with legitimate shooting skills (capable of decent scores in High Power, PRS, etc.) could have had a pronounced effect.
The difference starts by observing these groups during the most basic marksmanship task.
Typical Deer Hunter Sight-In Procedure
While some hunters are superior marksmen, many are not. This is the most common “procedure” I’ve seen used during the deer hunter sight-in days I’ve worked at:
Select a random target and set it up without considering the target’s suitability or bothering to determine the distance, ignoring anything about trajectory and other shooting details not understood.
Use a benchrest exclusively, never attempting to shoot from any other position. This is the most common tell that a hunter is not a skilled field shooter.
Splatter a series of shots vaguely near one of the aiming points.
Crank the sights. Don’t count clicks or try to understand how much each one is worth, while possibly ignoring which direction the sight “correction” is supposed to move.
Repeat steps 2-4 until ammunition is expended or until bored.
Glance at the target, ignoring that it now looks like a wall following a violent sneeze with a mouth full of partially chewed food.
Declare, “That’ll get one!”
Engage in idle chit-chat about the local sportsball teams for longer than spent “shooting.”
Tactical Sight-In Procedure
Same as above, except for Step 2 replace the benchrest with shooting at a full-size silhouette at very close range, and Step 8 replace sportsball chit-chat with catchphrases about how competition shooting causes “bad habits” and will “getcha killed.”
What about good shooters?
Rifles and optics made after World War 1 have the potential to out-range circa 1836 smoothbores by a factor of five to ten. Even the first rifled muzzleloaders of the mid-19th century have the potential to greatly extend a good shooter’s effective range.
During the first night of the Alamo siege, Mexican forces placed artillery about 300 meters out from Misión San Antonio de Valero which the Republic of Texas defenders used as their garrison. Good rifle shooters with more modern equipment could have wrecked those batteries before they were emplaced, necessitating Mexican leadership convincing their troops to charge over open terrain against accurate fire they couldn’t counter until covering at least a quarter kilometer.
However, this depends on knowledge and skill. The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat by Earl Hess recounts data that initial use of rifle muskets during the American Civil War found most engagements still took place at 100 meters or less, just as they had with smoothbores because commanders didn’t know how to use the potential range advantage rifles provided and troops lacked the skill to exploit the capability. Later, militaries established Schools of Musketry (yes, the name is a misnomer) to teach effective rifle marksmanship at distance and then field shooting to make practical use of it, however, these didn’t exist as established, formal training until about a half-century after The Battle of the Alamo.
In most military circles, these lessons have been since lost, however, the know-how exists in good marksmanship circles, especially in formal competition. So, the equipment could have made a difference, but it would depend on the individuals wielding it.