Not much point in discussing the finer points of the musket. Other than to say "it took so long to reload the guns" nonsense, a soldier in the British Army could load and fire three rounds a minute. Barrel rifling and the introduction of the minie ball considerably improved the accuracy of the musket, up to 100 yards. Proper military formation of one row kneeling, one standing behind, allowed for up to six volley's of fire per minute. the spear chuckers were at a considerable disadvantage. Anyway Issy is the forum expert on all things concerning guns and militarism.

More I read about these "Protectors of Aborigines", the more I think "Controller of Aborigines" would be a better description.

"One important fact about single shot muzzle loaders, apart from the fact they were only a one shot at a time gun, They were seriously inaccurate."

I'd dispute that, there are records for accuracy set with muzzleloaders that still stand'

I regularly use a flintlock ML for hunting rabbits and hares and it leaves nothing to be desired regarding accuracy and power.

Paul,

It wasn't the British Army and the accuracy with the minie ball and rifling extends out to 500 yards against man-sized targets.

Joe,

Moorehouse's Report on the Rufus River massacre was
disputed by William Robinson - head of the Overlanders
and later by James Collins Hawker. I'm surprised you
did not see this in your research. Here's a link:

http://www.revolvy.com/page/Rufus-River-massacre

Foxy,

I'm not defending Moorhouse, simply reporting what I transcribed from his letters. How you interpret them is up to you.

Ah, I see, that's how ...... what a surprise.

Paul,

As you know very well, the SA Protector was the only employee of the 'Aborigines' Department'. A one-man show, working six and often seven days a week, arranging for and supplying eventually up to seventy depots all over the colony. So, in the days of horses and carts, how could he 'control' anybody ? He was a doctor, not a superman. And why would he want to ? If anything, in supplying people with boats and guns, it indicates complete confidence in their responsible use of them.

Any other whinge ?

Joe

Foxy,

If anything, on the web-site you cite - in terms of numbers killed at Rufus River - Robinson and Hawker confirm Moorhouse's estimate. Of course, many others might have drowned in the river, or died in the bush, so the numbers are bound to be only estimates.

So what are you disputing ? I transcribed his letters and they're on my web-site (below): are you whingeing about that, or something else now ?

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe,

You can try wiggling out all you like.

Go to the Reference Desk of the State Library and
see for yourself the numbers killed and the
inaccuracy of Moorehouse's report and who's
disputing it.

I am not whinging and your attempts to put down
what I am saying has no effect. The facts speak
for themselves and are available. I am merely
quoting them. Of course seeing as you continue
to only rely on the records of "officialdom,"
your disputes are predictable.

Believe what you want - it no longer interests me.