line formation 40 feet from the enemy in bright red cloths and the colonists are easily able to blend into the foliage

This isn't part of the OP question per say, but I'm going to tackle this, because there seems to be a lack of understanding why troops dressed as they did.

Since longer than firearms have existed, troops have in organized formations dressed in distinctive clothing. This was required because without modern communications like radios, commanders needed to be able to survey the battlefield for command and control. Often signal flags were the fastest means of communication, and those by their very nature needed to be highly visible.

The strategies of warfare that were influenced by Napoleonic warfare called for rapid massed fire. Firepower, which can be thought of in the more broken down concept of "rapid fire which is 'accurate enough'" has been important since firearms were implemented. Whichever side has more firepower wins, generally. It wasn't terribly important how bullseye accurate a single soldier was, it was more important that they were able to march, move within a formation correctly, and act as a cohesive formation.

There was a use for scouts and harassing formations using subdued clothing, for sure. But it wasn't just the revolutionaries who took advantage of such tactics. The British did the exact same thing. They had irregulars and scout units the same as the colonial forces. Notably Rogers' Rangers were quite famous. But a large scale war is not won by scouts.

and shoot thesee high accuracy rifles that have much further range then the muskets. These are hunters and they have better weapons than one of the greatest land powers of the time.

Methinks you've just finished watching Mel Gibson's 'The Patriot'. The revolutionary units which acted as harassers did not turn the tide of the war. It was foreign intervention in terms of training and materials to the revolutionaries which was more important. The book 'Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States' written by Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben is considered so massively important that it is still cited for ceremonial formation by the modern US military. This book was a drill book used to train the militias in the conventional means of fighting at the time.

The final nail in the coffin for the war was Yorktown where a combination of Americans using conventional tactics and French naval support lead to an American victory which convinced the British to sue for peace.

The Americans didn't win the war because they had completely upended conventional British tactics, but because with foreign aid and good leadership they were able to adopt conventional tactics enough to go toe-to-toe with the British and make it more of a hassle for the British to continually send resources across the Atlantic to quell the solidified American military and political resistance.

Look further down the line at the American Civil War. While both sides made use of rifled muskets, those weapons in particular did not drastically change how they fought. Even with rifled muskets, formations often still lined up against each other and wore noticeable clothing. The CSA looked for victory in the same place victory had come during the American Revolution- by appealing to aid from foreign powers.

EDIT: Will add embedded sources and expand on this in several hours.

The bright clothing had a practical battlefield function - prior to the invention of modern smokeless propellants, warfare with firearms produced a frankly ridiculous amount of smoke - imagine this, but instead of fifty or so muskets it's a thousand or more, with artillery adding even more smoke. Bright clothing allows you to easily identify who's on which side at a glance through the haze of musket-smoke, which is extremely useful for command and control on the battlefield.

If you want to know more about the British army of this period, Richard Holmes' Redcoat: The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket is very good.

Muskets were better battle weapons. A musket could fire 3-4 shots per minute, a rifle about 1. Muskets were designed to take good bayonets, rifles none or an inferior plug bayonet.

The accuracy of a rifle was good for hunting and maybe sniping, but in battle there is smoke everywhere and you're being shot at, so accuracy was terrible. About one casualty per 500 rounds in Napoleonic warfare.

So a musket unit could advance close enough to shoot at a rifle-armed enemy unit, taking maybe around 1 casualty per 500 riflemen. Now the muskets have a 3 to 1 advantage in firepower and the ability to disperse a disorganized rifle unit with a bayonet advance. In regular battle, muskets dominated rifles.

Because rifles could be used as a hunting weapon, whereas the musket was almost exclusively a battlefield weapon.

Rifles were more accurate than muskets but they are much more difficult to reload. And in battle, European musketry doctrine had evolved into one wherein mass formations of musketeers used rate of fire to overwhelm enemies rather than relying on accuracy of individual shooters.

That said, the idea that the British Army had no rifles is wrong. They were tinkering with rifles for their skirmisher units before the Revolutionary War, and some units supposedly saw action and were equipped with the Ferguson rifle. By the Napoleonic Wars these rifle units had become a standard part of the British Army - using the cheaper Baker rifle - although by contrast their French opponents stopped using rifles at this point even for their skirmisher units as they felt the added accuracy wasn't good enough to justify the slowed rate of fire even for their marksmen and sharpshooters.