Unwilling as the English were to admit the superior skill of Americans on the ocean, they did not hesitate to admit it, in certain respects, on land.  The American rifle in American hands was affirmed to have no equal in the world.  This admission could scarcely be withheld after the lists of killed and wounded which followed almost every battle; but the admission served to check a wider inquiry.  In truth, the rifle played but a small part in the war.  Winchester’s men at the river Raisin may have owed their over-confidence, as the British Forty-first owed its losses, to that weapon, and at New Orleans five or six hundred of Coffee’s men, who were out of range, were armed with the rifle; but the surprising losses of the British were commonly due to artillery and musketry fire.  At New Orleans the artillery was chiefly engaged.  The artillery battle of January 1st, according to British accounts, amply proved the superiority of American gunnery on that occasion, which was probably the fairest test during the war.  The battle of January 8th was also chiefly an artillery battle:  the main British column never arrived within fair musket range; Pakenham was killed by a grape-shot, and the main column of his troops halted more than one hundred yards from the parapet.

The best test of British and American military qualities, both for men and weapons, was Scott’s battle of Chippawa.  Nothing intervened to throw a doubt over the fairness of the trial.  Two parallel lines of regular soldiers, practically equal in numbers, armed with similar weapons, moved in close order toward each other across a wide, open plain, without cover or advantage of position, stopping at intervals to load and fire, until one line broke and retired.  At the same time two three-gun batteries, the British being the heavier, maintained a steady fire from positions opposite each other.  According to the reports, the two infantry lines in the centre never came nearer than eighty yards.  Major-General Riall reported that then, owing to severe losses, his troops broke and could not be rallied.  Comparison of official reports showed that the British lost in killed and wounded four hundred and sixty-nine men; the Americans, two hundred and ninety-six.  Some doubts always affect the returns of wounded, because the severity of the wound cannot be known; but dead men tell their own tale.  Riall reported one hundred and forty-eight killed; Scott reported sixty-one.  The severity of the losses showed that the battle was sharply contested, and proved the personal bravery of both armies.  Marksmanship decided the result, and the returns proved that the American fire was superior to that of the British in the proportion of more than fifty per cent, if estimated by the entire loss, and of two hundred and forty-two to one hundred if estimated by the deaths alone.