AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: T*O*F on July 09, 2008, 04:23:47 PM
-
Let's put this Gen'l Fraser thing to rest along with the ability of shooting at longer distances. Below are two pages from an actual wholesale trade catalog. I have some from other companies as well. Read carefully to enlighten yourselves. Guns were advertised, sold and priced based on their ability to shoot at specific ranges. This is consistent with ALL the companies. There are other little tidbits of info to be gleaned here as well.
You want it in black and white, here it is. Beat it to death.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi102.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm104%2FML-L%2FALR%2FGunAd1.jpg&hash=c73c6e3dad02e8ed5685da7f266789282989665f)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi102.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm104%2FML-L%2FALR%2FGunAd2.jpg&hash=cdd5f97738a366ead17637fc0d517f6fcfb76d1e)
-
Thanks Dave.
-
Wish it was dated. Found the globe and peep sights interesting as well. According to Hansen some of the Hawkens and other later plains rifles were made fast twist to shoot slugs (Hawken Rifles Their Place in History) These rifles advertised were rated according to gauge as common for the times but imply round ball use. They were pecussion as noted by the patent breech. Target shooting became more popular as the country got more settled and more affluent. Also the ranges were qualified by the bore diameter which makes sense as a 200/pound ball would weigh about 35 grains and would not carry very far. Also a 50 bore would be about 45 caliber which is the largest in some models and a 30 bore or about a 55 caliber in others.
-
I to wish it was dated though I'm willing to go out on a limb and say we're pretty safe in guessing this information most likely dates from the 1850's and / or after that time period, which would nagate General Fraser's era as the word "Revolver" is used in the beginning... However....
Still, the information is valid as to ball size and range,,, unless when they say; "Every rifle is accompainied with round 'bullet-mould' and wiper," they are referring to a round nosed bullet mould, not a 'round ball' mould? Now at what point in history folks stopped referring to round balls as round ball and then began to say 'bullet', I don't know? However the wording of "Patch Box" does lean one towards the idea that these are round ball rifles. Unless the patch box is a hold over from earlier times?
Globe and peep sights also do lend the notion of, are we talking 'Rigby' type rifles here for the 150 to 900 yard 'ball' rifles, or again is the word ball now being used in the military term of 'ball' ammunition - which in many cases and even when I was in the Army back in the 70's, we shot ball ammunition which was marked on those .45 ACP cases, and 5.56 cases.
It's a very interesting two pages to be sure, and I do agree that the larger ball will be more accurate, and it is not impossible for it to carry out to 900 yards. If I remember correctly, a Creedmoor Target is 6 foot tall x 12 foot wide, with a 3 ft. x 3 ft. bull, 800 yards, 900 yards, and 1000 yards.
I can see the possibilities of hitting Creedmoor Targets with a heavy round ball fired from one of these rifles listed...
Good information! :)
-
Remember that by the time this was printed people in the east especially were shooting elongated projectiles for target work and hunting. The cloth patched picket bullet was the hunting version. By 1860 long heavy bullets patched in paper were being used to ranges well past 300 yards in heavy target rifles.
The peep and globe sights became popular with the picket bullets use.
A 50 bore ball is about .455" 200 to the pound is .28".
The catalog is probably from the 1850s at the earliest. Note "Express Office". I don't know when this came about but it sounds post Civil War too me.
Dan
-
I found this on; Great Western Gun Works
http://www.cornellpubs.com/Templates/GreatWestern-1871.htm
I'm going to do some more searching and see if I can find more?
-
Here is a bit more on Great Western Gun Works;
"An example of the strong prices earned by the Bast estate was reflected in a 19th-century Pennsylvania percussion hunting rifle made by J.H. Johnston, who operated the Great Western Gun Works near Pittsburgh. A gunsmith and businessman, he began producing a catalog of guns, ammo, and accessories in 1871. Long guns bearing his name are not uncommon in the region. The one sold at this auction had damage and repair but still managed $3850, largely because of family history. Three days earlier, a nearly identical Johnston rifle, in good condition and working order, sold on a firearms Internet site for $560."
from;
http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/stories/index.html?id=678
-
Certainly not a complete search, but the two references of an 1871 catalog points me in the direction that the 150 to 900 yard round bullet is not a round ball, but rather a round nosed bullet, or picket bullet as suggested by Dan.
The term ball may indeed be from "minie ball" there-by "round bullet-mould" and again the key word being 'bullet' not 'ball'... Just my thoughts.
1871 would be a prime time in history for long range shooting;
http://www.lrml.org/
This from the above 'lrml' site. I hope David doesn't mind me posting this here;
Colonel Chesney’s OBSERVATIONS ON THE PAST AND PRESENT STATE OF FIREARMS AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTS IN WAR OF THE NEW MUSKET published in 1852 quotes THE CEYLON TIMES from early in 1852: "The Comte de Belloy and his friends used on this occasion two French rifles having four grooves taking one whole turn in two metres or 192 inches [This is actually five metres!] in the length of the barrel which is 42 inches. The ball used was of lead 0.672 inch in diameter, 1.158 in height, weighing 730 grains; and with a charge of only nine grains, it penetrated and passed beyond an inch plank at the distance of 900 yards." There is then an illustration of a cannelured Minié bullet with an iron cup. General Paixhans in CONSTITUTION MILITAIRE DE LA FRANCE (Paris 1849) describes experiments with a new rifled carbine requiring only 4½ grains instead of 9 to propel a ball nearly double the weight formerly used. It must be remembered that the term "ball" here does not mean a sphere. Ranges extended to a quoted 1,093 yards when six out of one hundred hits were made. These amazingly small charges are simply explained by realising that in the translation the term Grain has been substituted without recalculation for the French Gramme which weighs 15½ Grains and would produce the French service charges.
-
Could be, but conicals bulelts were called 'balls', 'conical balls' and conicals long into the 1880's and 1890's. Some gus were called 'bulleted guns'. I don't remember any exerps, diaries or re-prints of letter to rifle mfgr's or suppliers that referred to concial projectiles as being bullets.
-
I to wish it was dated though I'm willing to go out on a limb and say we're pretty safe in guessing this information most likely dates from the 1850's and / or after that time period, which would nagate General Fraser's era as the word "Revolver" is used in the beginning... However....
Still, the information is valid as to ball size and range,,, unless when they say; "Every rifle is accompainied with round 'bullet-mould' and wiper," they are referring to a round nosed bullet mould, not a 'round ball' mould? Now at what point in history folks stopped referring to round balls as round ball and then began to say 'bullet', I don't know? However the wording of "Patch Box" does lean one towards the idea that these are round ball rifles. Unless the patch box is a hold over from earlier times?
Globe and peep sights also do lend the notion of, are we talking 'Rigby' type rifles here for the 150 to 900 yard 'ball' rifles, or again is the word ball now being used in the military term of 'ball' ammunition - which in many cases and even when I was in the Army back in the 70's, we shot ball ammunition which was marked on those .45 ACP cases, and 5.56 cases.
It's a very interesting two pages to be sure, and I do agree that the larger ball will be more accurate, and it is not impossible for it to carry out to 900 yards. If I remember correctly, a Creedmoor Target is 6 foot tall x 12 foot wide, with a 3 ft. x 3 ft. bull, 800 yards, 900 yards, and 1000 yards.
I can see the possibilities of hitting Creedmoor Targets with a heavy round ball fired from one of these rifles listed...
Good information! :)
The round ball never fell from use. The Picket Bullet had its problems in general use and many people simply did not bother with it.
I do not believe that you could shoulder fire a RB large enough to produce accuracy at 1000 yards. A 54 RB could not be made to go that far in testing a friend did back in the 70s. It was possible to hit a 36" target at 500 fairly often once an aiming point was found on the ridge above.
The ML Schuetzen rifles of the 1850s-1890s generally shot a cloth patched picket bullet at 200 yrds. These are always pretty short being about 2 calibers long
The bulleted MLs and breechloaders used for long range shooting from the 1870s on are a different proposition all together.
The ML and BL rifles used for the LR matches generally shot a 45 caliber bullet weighing 550 grains that were long (well over 3 calibers) for their weight and 100-110 grains of powder. The bullets were pretty well optimized for BC at the velocities they were obtaining (about 1350 at the muzzle). They were streamlined. These, in the BL at least, were also harder than the standard bullets. Once subsonic they lost little velocity and had an extreme range in excess of 3200 yards and were still lethal at terminal range producing several inches of penetration in wood at that distance. It was found in Gov't tests that at its terminal range (3000+-) the 45-70-500 (a blunt RN design) would kill troops in trenches covered by 1" planks. They came in that steeply when fired from the TDs 22" twist.
If you look in Whiskers "Gunsmiths of Landcaster County" (IIRC its out of reach right now) you will find a bullet mould made by one of the Gumpfs (?) with 3 cavities, RB, pointed picket and a slug that was round on each end. If you can find a copy of "Instructions to Young Markmen, The Improved American Rifle" by Chapman it gives some information on the advancements in bullet/rifle design in the 1830s/40s. Its been reprinted, back in the 1970s and I think its complete on the WWW at google books.
Dan
-
In usual form, this thread has gotten hijacked thru poor reading, supposition, assumption, and ignorance.
NOWHERE in the text does it say anything about 1000 yard shooting with bullets.
Common rifles 100-150 yards
Sporting rifles 100-300 yards
Horseback rifles 300 yards
A peep sight is not a tang sight
These are ALL roundball guns available for sale in 1871, at wholesale, to merchants in the business, for sale to the "common man" for his everyday use whether it be hunting, plinking, or sport shooting. They were available in various grades with optional accessories. This is no different than today with guns offered by Walmart or K-mart as opposed to better grades offered by establishments catering to a more influential clientele.
The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories. The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?" These are not specialized guns.
-
Mostly the now is influenced by modern writers that used to write about how inefficent the round ball is. Hal Swigget back in the 1970's wrote that he felt the round ball was not a humane thing to hunt with and bestowed the virtues of elongated bullets like the maxi ball. Many of the younger folks have been brought up on a steady diet of that propaganda and claims that you need a very powerful rifle to even kill deer. Heaven forbid anyone reading these magazines would use a lowly 30-30. One of these desciples called a local sporting goods store wondering if his 200 grain bullets for his 338 Winch. were enough for deer. I think that the ML's have been compared to modern stuff for so long that the idea that they could be effective beyond close range. Look at the modern ammo for the modern ML. They are all bullets and the loads recommended are pretty formidable. Ballistic tables are calculated, I think some of them may be a little off on retained velocity for RB's. You can, if you know the range makes hits with about anything at about any range on a very still day. Try shooting a round ball on a windy day at even 100 yards. The suppositions would have been more limited had you made your comments concerning the date and type of rifle previously.
DP
-
Mostly the now is influenced by modern writers that used to write about how inefficent the round ball is. Hal Swigget back in the 1970's wrote that he felt the round ball was not a humane thing to hunt with and bestowed the virtues of elongated bullets like the maxi ball. Many of the younger folks have been brought up on a steady diet of that propaganda and claims that you need a very powerful rifle to even kill deer. Heaven forbid anyone reading these magazines would use a lowly 30-30. One of these desciples called a local sporting goods store wondering if his 200 grain bullets for his 338 Winch. were enough for deer. I think that the ML's have been compared to modern stuff for so long that the idea that they could be effective beyond close range. Look at the modern ammo for the modern ML. They are all bullets and the loads recommended are pretty formidable. Ballistic tables are calculated, I think some of them may be a little off on retained velocity for RB's. You can, if you know the range makes hits with about anything at about any range on a very still day. Try shooting a round ball on a windy day at even 100 yards. The suppositions would have been more limited had you made your comments concerning the date and type of rifle previously.
DP
Most ballistic programs are not properly set up to do the proper calculations on low velocity bullets.
Shooters are generally overly impressed with energy levels. Its the only way they can judge HV small diameter bullets.
There are other calculations to be made. There is a set of calculators at http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/index.htm
There is a Thornily Stopping Power calculator. It rates a .662 Rb at 1400 fps (40-50 yard impact velocity) higher than a .375 H&H 300 gr at 2650 (velocity is a guess).
This falls into line with Forsythe stating that the 16 bore is the smallest generally used for dangerous game. But there is a MASSIVE difference in the bullet energy.
The 16 also beats the 375 in the Taylor KO formula.
Do I believe these are 100% accurate? Probably not. But they do show the 16 IS a pretty powerful hunting arm WITHIN ITS RANGE.
Dan
-
Those that try them usually find that big bores do a pretty fair job beyond their "paper" ballistics. Most of the formulas derived for stopping power were an attempt to try to explain why the big bores seemed to work more consistantly in practice than the HV magnums. I can and have gotten long winded on this but essentially the big bullets can handle the impact energy better than little bullets. The math of collisions works that way. Compare the damage to a car that has hit say a big oak tree to one that has hit another parked car at the same speed where both cars cave in. Also if you look at TOF's posted ad concerning the round ball guns. Caliber was stipulated as an important consideration for range. As they are stated to be target rifles they must have been used at longer ranges. Why 300 yards as a maximum? Were target ranges up to that range? Limitation of iron sights? Although BPC shooters hit further away. Where did that magic number come from?
DP
-
big bullets can handle the impact energy better than little bullets.
To further the analogy..........I shot a .62 rifle for many years. When asked why, I would always answer with this question.
Would you rather be speeding down the interstate at 120 mph and get hit in the forehead with a june bug; or, would you rather get hit by a freight train doing 20 mph. They usually got the point.
-
Those that try them usually find that big bores do a pretty fair job beyond their "paper" ballistics. Most of the formulas derived for stopping power were an attempt to try to explain why the big bores seemed to work more consistantly in practice than the HV magnums. I can and have gotten long winded on this but essentially the big bullets can handle the impact energy better than little bullets. The math of collisions works that way. Compare the damage to a car that has hit say a big oak tree to one that has hit another parked car at the same speed where both cars cave in. Also if you look at TOF's posted ad concerning the round ball guns. Caliber was stipulated as an important consideration for range. As they are stated to be target rifles they must have been used at longer ranges. Why 300 yards as a maximum? Were target ranges up to that range? Limitation of iron sights? Although BPC shooters hit further away. Where did that magic number come from?
DP
Because even picket bullets are too short to shoot well past this and even 300 is stretching it.
None of the rifles in the catalog are particularly large bore, largest mentioned is about 55-56.
Long heavy bullets such as used by the heavy bench rifles like those made by Warner will shoot into 1-2 minutes (3-6) at 300 for long strings of shots, 15-50 rounds. Lighter bullets just will not in *most* cases.
Dan
-
O know some wonderful shooting can be done at 300 yards with peep sights and modern rifles and BPC's. But when someone makes a claim that the rifle is good to 300 yards what is the criteria? Can it hit a specified bullseye, a barn or was that a common claim by hunters for longer shots? We all are familiar enough with our ML's to be able to shoot at 100-150, but as a target shooter I do know that a 200 gauge may on a good day give something of a group at longer ranges but it is it is not practical beyond 75-100 yards. A 40 or above is needed and a 45 is better at 100-150 yards. A 40 is about a 65 gauge. 300 yards is a darn long shot for the "average" shooter to make with a scoped modern rifle. It takes a bit of shooting to get good enough to hit anything resembling game at that range. Hits are made at very long ranges. I shot a crow once at about 300 yards with a 22 hornet, but do not expect to duplicate that particular shot again. Its the same way with people that hit a gong at longer range with a small caliber. Put it on a bullseye and then compare to a larger bore.
DP
-
"The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories. The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?" These are not specialized guns.'
This is some good stuff, a bit later than I usually get into but interesting, I do wonder if back at that time there was the concept of "advertizment hype"
as we have today with many things?
-
"The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories. The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?" These are not specialized guns.'
This is some good stuff, a bit later than I usually get into but interesting, I do wonder if back at that time there was the concept of "advertizment hype"
as we have today with many things?
tg,
On the yardage question, I can't give you a specific date but it's when people stopped trying.
(I hate to hijack this thread yet again but I don't have an option for these analogies) When did it become mandatory that one needed an optical sight (scope) to shoot a deer or turkey? Remember the "MAGNUM 80's" which have dragged on since? This where you can't possibly kill a turkey at 25 yards with anything less than a scoped super magnum camo covered gun slinging 2+ ounces of shot from the latest shoulder breaking MEGA-MAGNUM! When did the change take place in the rifle world where 3"-4" groups at 100yds became acceptable for big game hunting? Then again, when did groups change from 5, 7 or 10 rounds to just 3 rounds? When did the change come that people have to remove the rifle from their shoulder and reposition their entire body to cycle a bolt or lever action take more time and effort than if they were cycling a single shot.
As for the marketing hype... one of my favorites are these new "short magnums" where the key point made in every single ad is "fast follow-up shot". Well, in my opinion, if this new loudenboomer magnum was so great, why in the heck should I need to worry about a follow-up shot at all let alone how fast I can get one off? How about the "almost" rounds like the .45GAP ... actual quote from their ads said something to the effect, "provides almost the same performance as the .45acp" - okay, the .38 Super is almost as good as the .45acp too - what's your point?
The same goes for the quality of the guns themselves. If one was to buy a higher priced production model, he could expect to get a gun assembled with at least reasonable craftsmanship - go pull a half dozen $750+ rifles off the store rack and take a good look at them. Swirls from orbital sanders standing out under the finish like thousands of little neon signs; barrel channels cut so there's barely 0.0625" of wood on one side and nearly 0.250" on the other; machine stamped checkering that is way out of plane from side to side; recoil pads installed shy on one side and hanging over on the other ... and this is now days considered not only "acceptable quality" but it's actually praised by many!
Look back in time and you'll see many difference, not the least of which is that no one had the attitude of "it can't be done", the attitude was "let's find a way to make it work". When conical first started appearing on the scene, their terminal wound creating ability was compared to that of a round ball. Even years later when BP cartridges came out, the bullets were designed to create a wound channel that was as effective as a round ball and is the sole reason why round nose bullets were the favored choice for hunting.
As far as shooting target with round balls from an ML beyond a given range, look at the constant barrage of negative comments made about them by the modern gun rag prostitutes. Facts do not matter, all that matters is who offers the highest bid for their writing services. The cheap $#@* guns and low-quality or poorly designed components don't help matters either. I don't care how good the barrel or anything else is, you put a front sight on it that's big enough in diameter to cover a 12" bullseye at 100yds, you are not going to be able to accurately place your shots at 100yds let alone 300yds. I don't care if you want to talk ML's or the most modern loudenboomer magnums, pick up any production built gun that comes with sights and you'll take note that high-production mfg's have some sort of fixation with seeing who can installing the largest and worst possible sights - I often have to wonder if the scope mfg's aren't supplying sights to gun factories for free just to promote their own optical products.
So yes, it's part advertising, it's part poor quality equipment, it's part poor quality components and it's mostly apathetic/ignorant users. Just look at the in-line users, one of their common arguments is "it's easy to clean". Anyone who is primarily a traditional gun shooter will quickly see that cleaning an in-line not only requires special tools but the process take at least four times longer to complete than cleaning up your favorite rocklock. Another thing is this claim of "fast follow-up shot" - again, look at the amount of special tools and supplies you have to carry for them and you'll again see that you can accurately place two balls from your flinter to every rushed shot with an in-line. Point is, facts don't matter anymore, all that matters now days is bragging rights based on sales hype. It's the same when you show-up at the sporting clays shoot with anything less than the latest $2500+ "sporting clays special" gun and another $1000 of designer tagged special sporting clays apparel. Been there, done that and more than once - show-up in work jeans and a tee shirt, carry my ammo & empties in an old cotton haversack and listen to the sneers and nasty comments from others ... until the shooting starts and they realize they're getting their butts handed to them by a mere peasant using a plain barrel single brass bead model 12 Winchester 20ga built in 1926 and running brass hulls loaded with card wads and black powder. I built my custom machinery business thanks to all the alleged experts claiming "it can't be done" - while they specialized in creating excuses, I was busy solving the problem - ignorance and apathy got them no where.
-
It seems to me that in the 1950s and 60s, a 3" group at 100 yds was considered to be average accuracy to be expected from a production hunting rifle. And to get back to long range roundball, in the 1800s there was a very different ethic around killing game. At least some people seemed to blaze away regardless of range not in the hope of a heart shot but more of a wounding shot that would slow the animal down enough for the shooter to catch up to it. Baker for example comments on shooting an elephant at somewhere around 600 yds (Rifle & Hound in Ceylon) although they had to ride up to it to finish it off.
cheers Doug
-
All of what has been said has merit. We have been brainwashed by modern marketers and see people that think that you have to have a scope to hit a moose at 50 yards. But when I see an ad that says that this rifle will perform out to this range I am interested in how it performs. Billy Dixon is said to have shot an Apache at about a mile at Adobe Wells. I personally think that that Apache was about the most unlucky individual in the West to have been hit at that range. No buffalo gun is really going to consistantly hit a man sized target at a mile and I think the Apache would have died by lightening anyway. I bought a 270 that shot a lot of game based on reading Jack O'Connor and what an acquaintance did with his. I pretty much know what one will do and have taken 200 plus yard shots with one on deer. I have shot a few jackrabbits in Western MN with a 222 that really stretched the barrel. These are modern cartridges with scopes designed to shoot at longer ranges. Somewhere those people said that the ML's perform out to 300 yards. At known ranges on targets you can do pretty good with any accurate rifle, on game it would take a lot of experience with iron sights and range judgement. What are the parameters for someone to say I will use this round ball rifle at 300 yards?
DP
-
hey you guys all got it wrong. round balls and especially flintlocks ain't accurate or reliable. I heard this as fact at a local rifle range just recently. and that great authority Toby Bridges says so :o 8) :D
-
Really? He said that? OK then,I'm selling all my flinters!
-
Really? He said that? OK then,I'm selling all my flinters!
Just think about how Toby would loose his lunch if he found out ole Roy is running smoothbores to boot!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Billy Dixon is said to have shot an Apache at about a mile at Adobe Wells. I personally think that that Apache was about the most unlucky individual in the West to have been hit at that range.
Apart from thinking that the range was actually in the 1100 to 1200 yd range, I also recall reading that Dixon said he was not sure if he hit the Indian or his horse; only the fellow dropped from view and that the shot was enough to convince the Indians that they were still in range of the shooters
Back to the long range roundball, at least part of the equation (in my opinion) is keeping a constant sight picture and finding a sighting target to aim in relation to. In other words a distinctive tree branch or rock or bush that you can see above the sights and that is roughly the amount of drop above the intended target.
cheers Doug
-
Apart from thinking that the range was actually in the 1100 to 1200 yd range, I also recall reading that Dixon said he was not sure if he hit the Indian or his horse; only the fellow dropped from view and that the shot was enough to convince the Indians that they were still in range of the shooters
cheers Doug
US Army surveyors, under the command of Nelson A. Miles, measured the distance of the shot: 1,538 yards, or nine-tenths of a mile. And though Billy Dixon never claimed the shot was anything other than a lucky one; that's still good shoot'n.
-
I have recently read, from someone who did some research, that this shot was not mentioned by any of the participants of the Adobe Walls fight and in fact only came to light after Dixon's death when his wife published the book.
Since the researcher claims it appears nowhere else previously its suspect.
However, JacK Bean's similar range shot during the "Wagon Road Expedition" detailed in "The 1874 Invasion of Montana: A Prelude to the Custer Disaster" by Don L. Weibert is pretty well documented. But he had a scope sighted 44-90. Range was something over 1200. There were three possible sites where the indians might have been and one was 1700 IIRC. The book on this "expedition" was a limited production run and its hard to find. But it gives some interesting insights into events leading Custers defeat.
Since this took place in 1874 or 75 and was reported at the time, it is a possible basis for the later writing of the Billy Dixon shot.
Dan
-
"The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories. The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?" These are not specialized guns.'
This is some good stuff, a bit later than I usually get into but interesting, I do wonder if back at that time there was the concept of "advertizment hype"
as we have today with many things?
While it is possible to hit a man at 300 with a RB compared to a rifle such as a 40-45 caliber or even a 50 Sharps or one of the ML slug guns of pre-Civil War America they are pretty random in they grouping at this distance.
Hype?
P.T Barnum was born in 1810...
From Wikipedia;
"In 1842, Barnum introduced his first major hoax, the "Fejee" mermaid, which he leased from fellow museum owner Moses Kimball of Boston, who became his friend, confidant, and collaborator. He justified his hoaxes or "humbugs" as "advertisements to draw attention...to the Museum. I don't believe in duping the public, but I believe in first attracting and then pleasing them....."
Dan
-
As stated, if that shot was made, whoever got shot was the unluckiest person in the West and whoever made it was very lucky. Just for further thought, for long range shooting with a BP firearm a few things have to be in place. First the rifle has to be relatively accurate. A 2" group at 100 yards does not mean a 6" group at 300. You have to be able to see the target and know the range. And you have to have sights that will permit more precise shooting. Were I to make a long range percussion or flint, it would have to of course have a good barrel, but as importantly it would ahve to have a very good lock trigger system and ignition system. The cheaper rifles advertised may not have double set triggers for instance (since they were cheaper it is a good way to sell better rifles by stating their limitations). Globe and peep sights were advertised. Two hundred yards or a little less might be stretching open sights, but a good peep sight system can be pretty accurate out to 300 yards. The better ones adjust so that you can hold dead on for varying ranges. The biggest problem for long range shooting with a BP firearm is its trajectory beyond about 100 yards. After 200 a misjudgement of 25 yards or so might cause a miss. I was amused at books written by Louis LaMour when he mentioned some ranchers painting ranges on the backs of rocks. Whether it was done I have no idea but it would have been a good one.
DP
-
"The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories. The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?" These are not specialized guns.'
This is some good stuff, a bit later than I usually get into but interesting, I do wonder if back at that time there was the concept of "advertizment hype"
as we have today with many things?
I can't imagine anyone who has ever shot a traditional round ball muzzle loader would doubt the rifle's ability to put the ball on the mark within their practiced range of confidence of hitting their target. that would be up to each individual and the confidence they had.
I do believe that the Civil War put forth the idea;
1842 .69 caliber Percussion "Springfield" Muskets firing Buck & ball from 70 to 100 yards --or-- 1861 .58 caliber Springfield Rifled-Muskets from 200 to 300 yards firing the minie ball.
The sheer volume of men involved in the Civil War could have swayed opinions of the day from April of 1865 well into 1871 and beyond, loving and/or cursing the minie ball?
-
Really? He said that? OK then,I'm selling all my flinters!
Just think about how Toby would loose his lunch if he found out ole Roy is running smoothbores to boot!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I hit a big hot water tank ,the kind from those old kitchen wood burners. A few rifle shooters were hitting it,but my smoothie kinda bowled into it! One bounce is all tho! Ha! I got a punch for it,none the less! 300 yds offhand is a long shot with any kind of firearm, primitive or modern. With the 62 smooth,it's a "hail Mary" shot!
-
Roy, You just gotta love it - "hail Mary" or not, the ploink is all that counts! ;D
I still say the biggest problem is the myths and some flat-out lies perpetrated by the gun rags. No matter if the negatives originate from pure ignorance, failure to separate myth from fact or the intentional lies associated with "marketing by negative" (knocking down similar products rather than having one they can sell on its own merits)
The claim that shots cannot be placed accurately beyond 50, 100, 150 or X yards of range with open sights is BS. Three things account for accuracy at any given range:
1- The equipment's ability to produce accuracy - the overall quality of the gun that is properly constructed with quality sights, quality ammunition components contained in a load that is tuned to the gun.
2- The shooter's willingness to accomplish the task at hand - If the shooter is not willing to do their part then the gun cannot do its part.
3- Environmental conditions - I don't care if you're shooting a smoothbore matchlock or the latest mega-magnum, everything is affected by winds, thermal currents, rain, snow, ect. and some more than others.
I feel that number two is the biggest problem of all. Shooters of today have allowed themselves to become apathetic and ignorant. The read an article in a gun rag that claims open sights are not accurate beyond 50 yards and they believe it. The manufacturer put some giant bead on top of a post and the consumer blindly accepts it as being "first rate". (I deal with this on a regular basis with the vintage Ford Mustangs - the most common argument is "rust proofing wasn't put on at the factory, it's got to be factory". My reply is, "the factory didn't put anti-seize on the bolts going through or into aluminum either and it just cost you $600 to repair a part that could have been saved by a penny's worth of anti-seize." Ignorance is costly to those who embrace it and profitable to those who can exploit it.)
The design of the sight system is as important as the barrel itself. You can have an extremely accurate barrel & load yet the giant-size front sight that covers 48" of view at 150 yards will destroy any possibility of obtaining an accurate sight picture. No way around it, the finer the sights, the finer the accuracy can be and if the shooter is not willing to seek out and install proper sights, then all is resting on the apathy of the shooter. Same goes for selecting ammunition/loads - if the shooter is willing to put the effort into checking the weight & balance of every ball/bullet and accurately building loads to match the select projectiles and which compliments the gun, then there is a reasonable expectation of accuracy.
Far too much reliance is put on equipment these days because the shooters are apathetic as to what is required of them. You can take a modern rifle & ammo that is capable of stacking bullets end to end at 600 yards and put it in the hands of an apathetic shooter and it will be of no value at 100 yards let alone 600 yards. Take that same rifle and put it in the hands of a dedicated shooter and he/she will make it sing at 1000 yards or more.
The most accurate rifle with factory loaded ammo I have ever owned in a Mosin-Nagant 91/30 built in 1937 and in capable hands, I'd put it up against any sporter ever made using commercial factory ammo and OEM iron sights. Thing is, if you spent five minutes searching the web, I'm sure you'll find hundreds of gun rag articles written by "experts" telling you how poor the accuracy is with this rifle.
Fact of the matter is, these self-proclaimed experts are experts at nothing more than selling their writing skills. If writer A writes an article telling readers that by simply replacing the junk OEM iron sights with quality ones, they can shoot accurately over the iron at much longer ranges - writer A is not going to be able to sell his writing skills to company B that makes rifle scopes. It's no different than the auctioneer, every single gun that came up for sale was "best I've ever seen". After an hour of listening to that $#@*, I was pushed over the edge, I stood up and said, "If these are the best you've ever seen, you obviously don't get out much." - I didn't wait for him to ask me to leave.
Thing is, just like at that auction where people were paying on average 150%-300% above what the items were worth simply because they listened to the BS the auctioneer was telling them, likewise these same people will read some $#@* from a gun rag writer and just accept it as fact and never get beyond their own self-inflicted apathy.
-
Mark,
Well said! Now why didn't I say that?!! Thanks Mark.
-
Watching a History channel episode titled "The Shot" the other night, the claim was made that a british soldier was supposed to be able to place his shots on a man at 900 yards. This was either with a smoothie or a rifle gun, did not catch which.
That with either smooth or rifled seems probably to be an erroneous statement, however it was made by and "expert" ;)
Maybe some of our Brit historians can shed some light on this?
-
Watching a History channel episode titled "The Shot" the other night, the claim was made that a british soldier was supposed to be able to place his shots on a man at 900 yards. This was either with a smoothie or a rifle gun, did not catch which.
That with either smooth or rifled seems probably to be an erroneous statement, however it was made by and "expert" ;)
Maybe some of our Brit historians can shed some light on this?
During what period?? Round balls unless very large, 1" or so, simply will not go that far.
The Civil War era Whitworth would do this with some regularity but probably not every shot. Some were scoped. They were so feared that at the end of the war (I am told) most of the Confederate Whitworths were destroyed buy the Union Army.
I think there is a surviving scoped version that came out of Texas in the last few years.
But the Whitworth used a bullet about 3 calibers long.
Dan
-
Round balls unless very large, 1" or so, simply will not go that far.
C'mon Dan
Your prejudices are starting to make you sound like Fred Miller (not the barrel inletter).
Dig out Hatcher's Notebook and re-read the chapter on How Far Will My Gun Shoot.
In the table for maximum roundball ranges he lists:
.645 roundball..........1420 yards
.545 roundball..........1200 yards
.410 roundball..........850 yards
-
If it was a round ball shot by a British soldier I would expect it to be a rather large bore as common with British mentality. The Baker rifle (if I remember correctly) was about a 20 gauge or 62 caliber. Kind of short barreled like the Jaeger. One British officer wrote that a Bess "if not excedingly ill bored) would place its shots in a man at 80 yards. I assume he meant with the fast loading paper cartridges. A very far cry from 900. What can be done on a 900 yard range and what can be done in the field would be different. Today they use laser rangefinders. Back then they had to assume a standard height of a person and use a reference against that height. Army's back then, did not train marksmanship. British officers despised American riflemen because they tended to pick off British officers which was really unsporting and ungentlemenly, don't you know old chap. Also ammunition and training was considered too expensive. Marksmanship training by our military really did not occur until possibly after the Spanish American War. They merely took advantage of those who could shoot already. On a visit to Fort Snelling they pointed out that the soldiers were so busy cutting wood for winter, raising gardens and other duties just to survive that there was little time left for military training.
DP
-
Round balls unless very large, 1" or so, simply will not go that far.
C'mon Dan
Your prejudices are starting to make you sound like Fred Miller (not the barrel inletter).
Dig out Hatcher's Notebook and re-read the chapter on How Far Will My Gun Shoot.
In the table for maximum roundball ranges he lists:
.645 roundball..........1420 yards
.545 roundball..........1200 yards
.410 roundball..........850 yards
Prejudices???
I don't have Hatcher's Notebook. But I do have a friend who does and he also did actual firing tests 20 odd years ago. He claims that he could not get his 54 caliber flintlock rifle to shoot to 1000 yards. If I find the article he wrote about it I could give better details.
I suggest you consider that according to Lyman the 535 rb started at 1800 fps is falling over an inch a yard at 300 yards and looses 37 fps between 275 and 300. If we take this velocity loss per yard we find that if it continues to lose velocity at this rate, 37 fps per 25 yards (which it probably will not but lets say it does), it will loose over 1000 fps getting to 1000 yards. This is interesting since its only doing 617 fps at 300 yards. If is looses only 18 fps average over each 25 yard segment for the rest of the 600 remaining yards (going to "only" 900 yards) we get a velocity loss in excess of 400 fps.
As I said unless very large a RB is not going to travel to 900-1000 yards. Is simply falling too steep.
At a rate of fall of over 1" a yard it will fall in excess of 600 inches even if it looses NO velocity at all.
So we now must ask what was Hatcher's initial velocity and are the distances bases on actual testing.
Based on actual testing and Lyman's data Hatcher is in error unless he is using a very high initial velocity such as might be obtained with smokeless powder or HE as in a bursting charge.
Dan
-
I read an article on the net about tests performed on several black powder rifle calibers.
The tests were conducted on a government testing range with the extreme ranges measured by radar.
All calibers, 45-70 to 50-110, I think, exceeded ranges thought possible by experts in the field.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, nor did I save the URL.
Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range. I would have copied that information had round ball guns been tested.
I only mention this because the maximum ranges measured by radar exceeded maximum ranges calculated for those calibers. The same might be said for max ranges for round ball, even though they obviously will not reach out as far as conical bullets fired in a cartridge rifle.
IMHO, no matter how those max ranges are calculated, no one can know how far those old guns will shoot unless someone actually measures the distance from the muzzle to the point of impact of the ball.
Anyone have access to a range capable of accurately determining the max range of round ball guns?
-
Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range.
JD,
Between you and Dan, I give up. The definitive information is there, you guys just haven't read it.
Hatcher's Notebook, 640 pages, was first published in 1947. It is one of THE most definitive gun books ever written. My copy is the 1957 edition that I bought 42 years ago and first learned ballistics from.
Maj. Gen. Julian Hatcher was in charge of Ordnance and Small Arms testing at Frankford Armory for many years. He used the full compliment of tools and men at his disposal to do all kinds of testing. In "How far will my gun shoot" he lined spotters down the beach of the ocean on dead calm days and fired guns from a platform in the ocean. They noted the bullet strikes as they hit the water. Angles, velocities, etc were all noted and recorded.
He was the first to mechanically aim a gun straight up at 90 degrees from the same platform to see where the bullets hit when they returned to earth. They measured terminal velocities to determine which calibers and bullet weights would injure a man under those conditions.
He was the first to test what happens if you throw bullets in the fire, and will they injure a man. These are just a couple of the tests he ran. He was a superb mathematician and ballistician. The book is full of formulas, graphs, etc.
I just can't believe that any "gun nut" doesn't have this book in their library It's one of the classics, as opposed to Lyman's book which is just "everyman's" reference.
-
I read an article on the net about tests performed on several black powder rifle calibers.
The tests were conducted on a government testing range with the extreme ranges measured by radar.
All calibers, 45-70 to 50-110, I think, exceeded ranges thought possible by experts in the field.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, nor did I save the URL.
Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range. I would have copied that information had round ball guns been tested.
I only mention this because the maximum ranges measured by radar exceeded maximum ranges calculated for those calibers. The same might be said for max ranges for round ball, even though they obviously will not reach out as far as conical bullets fired in a cartridge rifle.
IMHO, no matter how those max ranges are calculated, no one can know how far those old guns will shoot unless someone actually measures the distance from the muzzle to the point of impact of the ball.
Anyone have access to a range capable of accurately determining the max range of round ball guns?
Personally know BOTH the shooters. They used a 45-2 7/8" with a 550 grain and a 50- 2.5" with a 650 (IIRC).
EVERYONE except a few gov't "experts" knew how far they would shoot since the 45-70-500, the 45-80-500 and the 577-450 were tested in the 1870s-80s by the US military.
As I have stated about 3 times now a friend did LR testing with a 54 RB and could not get it past about 950-975 (IIRC). I discussed this in a recent conversation abut the 300 yard shot and told me, again, that the 54 will not shoot to 1000.
I could probably do some testing but its totally pointless since even if you could get a ball to 900-1000 yards it is virtually impossible to hit a target, unless its HUGE when the bullet is falling within a few degrees of vertical.
Dan
-
I do have a copy of Hatcher's notebook that I had forgotten about, but didn't see any information on max range of round ball ML rifles. Lots and lots of information on cartridge ammunition, but apparently missed the tables on round ball guns. How about some page numbers.
-
I tend to agree that at extreme ranges like 900 yards a slug gun was likely used. They are about the only type of shoulder held BP firearm capable of that type of precison. Also it seemed like their development spurred that type of shooting interest. The Whitworth was a British rifle exported to the confederacy. A Whitworth is also capable of that type of shooting. When the Irish rifle team invited the US shooters over to show us how to shoot they were using muzzleloaders against the cartridge Sharps. We only beat them by one shot the first year. This was I believe at 1000 yards. The rifled musket of the civil war was claimed to be effective up to 600 yards (claimed to be, not saying it was) and the war was a bloody one due to Napolean Tactics used against rifles. Whether or not round ball had that range, there seems to be no records of extreme range target shooting with them like there was with the slug guns. Could a big bore round ball do someone damage at 900 yards, yes. The chaces of hitting are slim. I go back to TOFS ad about round ball rifles and 300 yard accuracy. They were at that time starting to compete with MLs rifled for slugs and cartridge guns. Advertising accuracy for longer ranges would have been likely in 1871. Just a thought.
DP
-
I go back to TOFS ad about round ball rifles and 300 yard accuracy. They were at that time starting to compete with MLs rifled for slugs and cartridge guns. Advertising accuracy for longer ranges would have been likely in 1871.
In my readings thru the years, I have come across numerous instances of shooting matches with roundball flint guns dating to the 18th century. Can't quote sources, but anyone who has done lots of reading would have come across them also.
They knew their guns intimately then, because their lives depended on them. It was a common practice to load 1/2, full, or double measures of powder depending on the target and they knew where each one hit.
-
There were all kinds of matches with all kinds of guns. One artist at one time had a rather humerous painting of one about Revolutionary times where they were shooting at a bulbous nose of a redcoat painted on a door. Even seen special flinters built up for targets including one with a long tube covering the sights. What I meant was that I have never seen any reference to what I will call extreme range matches such as the 1000 yard stuff, with roundball and flintlocks of a formal nature like there was for the slugs. The BPC crowd has revived a few extreme range matches but I do not know of any for MLs. There are MLs that can compete against cartridge guns, and Pedersoli is selling one now, but it is definitely not a round ball gun. Most of the older matches were more like the mention one made of the call for riflemen that could hit a playing card at 100 paces. Were there any clls for Riflement to hit anything at even long ranges such as a quarter mile? Maybe, but I have not heard of them, which I will admit is hardly definitive. 300 yards is a very healthy shot with a RB of any normal caliber.
DP
-
Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range.
JD,
Between you and Dan, I give up. The definitive information is there, you guys just haven't read it.
Hatcher's Notebook, 640 pages, was first published in 1947. It is one of THE most definitive gun books ever written. My copy is the 1957 edition that I bought 42 years ago and first learned ballistics from.
Maj. Gen. Julian Hatcher was in charge of Ordnance and Small Arms testing at Frankford Armory for many years. He used the full compliment of tools and men at his disposal to do all kinds of testing. In "How far will my gun shoot" he lined spotters down the beach of the ocean on dead calm days and fired guns from a platform in the ocean. They noted the bullet strikes as they hit the water. Angles, velocities, etc were all noted and recorded.
He was the first to mechanically aim a gun straight up at 90 degrees from the same platform to see where the bullets hit when they returned to earth. They measured terminal velocities to determine which calibers and bullet weights would injure a man under those conditions.
He was the first to test what happens if you throw bullets in the fire, and will they injure a man. These are just a couple of the tests he ran. He was a superb mathematician and ballistician. The book is full of formulas, graphs, etc.
I just can't believe that any "gun nut" doesn't have this book in their library It's one of the classics, as opposed to Lyman's book which is just "everyman's" reference.
You need to do some research on your own. Bullets in a fire launch the cartridge case as hard or harder than the bullets according to recent tests I have watched on TV. However, 308s belted in disintegrating link belts the bullets will pierce a 55 gal drum burn barrel. I KNOW this from personal experience.
-
Guy by the name of Newton. For every reaction there is an equal an opposite reaction. A cartridge ignited in a fire has no breech, the bullet and case should both take off. Just for grins and chuckles I found another reference to the 300 yard range of a roundball. Quote from a British officer "provided an American Rifleman were to get a perfect aim at 300 yards at me, standing still, he most undoubtedly would hit, unless it was a very windy day" Interesting. found the quote in an old boom on Remington firearms. They also mentioned the shooting matches such as beef and turkey shoots, but no mention was made of extreme range shooting.
DP
-
You need to do some research on your own. Bullets in a fire launch the cartridge case as hard or harder than the bullets according to recent tests I have watched on TV. However, 308s belted in disintegrating link belts the bullets will pierce a 55 gal drum burn barrel. I KNOW this from personal experience.
I was on the nozzle in a sporting goods store fire, don't know how many hundreds of rounds cooked off but the only problems that existed were some primers from shotgun shells that came out with some force that could be dangerous to unprotected eyes/skin. All the rifle ammo that cooked blew the sides of the cases out and much of it didn't go far from where it was to start with, a few feet at most. Cartridges that cooked off in their paper & styrofoam factory boxes, sides swelled and split open on the brass. No evidence was ever found from projectiles moving more than a few inches from were the case ruptured. Perhaps with a very strong steel cartridge case and an insufficient crimp on the bullet maybe but this would be an exception rather than the rule.
-
I have an english sporting rifle of .54 cal. It has a express sight blade set at 200 yds. With a load of 85 fffg at 200 yds, a 15 to 20 mph wind blows the ball off target as much as 46". Guns shoot better now than they ever did in history. Yeah you can hit something at 300 yards if everything is perfect including the shooter. It doesn't happen very often. The energy of that ball at 300 yards is about 200 ft. lbs.
-
I have an english sporting rifle of .54 cal. It has a express sight blade set at 200 yds. With a load of 85 fffg at 200 yds, a 15 to 20 mph wind blows the ball off target as much as 46". Guns shoot better now than they ever did in history. Yeah you can hit something at 300 yards if everything is perfect including the shooter. It doesn't happen very often. The energy of that ball at 300 yards is about 200 ft. lbs.
Blue Mt ML Club at Shartlesville, Pa runs a match (August) each yr in which we shoot at a Jaeger target offhand at 200 measured yds. X ring is abt 1 1/2 inches and the 10 ring is around 2 3/4 inches at a dollar a shot. $100. to the shooter closest to the X. If Irecall correctly they have fired this match for 9 yrs now and one ol guy has won either 4 or 5 times. Once with his first shot!!!! :o ::) :P. His rifle has fixed sights and he uses a heavy' holdover. He admits it is more luck than brains.. ;D .454 ball .015 spit 80 Goex.
-
Would his name be "Roger",by chance?
-
Another interesting thread! - Anyone besides me got a computer program that will well you the maximum range of a round ball? All that is required it the ballistic coefficient of the ball and the initial velocity. Trajectory is applied by inserting the zero range, then the graph will show you (printable) the angle and trajectory, as close as in 10 feet distances.
There are several of these programs. The one I use lacks some bells and whistles, but is free. You can pay for one from Lyman, Lee and Sierra to name a few, but Point Blank is free. Just google it. The old Lyman BP book will give you the BC's of the ball from about .32" up to .735". Try it, it's interesting. No round ball that I've checked makes it even remotely close to 1,000 yards when fired in dead calm conditions. By the way, side winds from the left make the ball lose elevation while side winds from the right cause the ball rise slightly. This can be seen on a target.
Althought I very much repect the late Jullian Hatcher and his work during and after WW11, I suspect his testing must have been done in a hurricane-force wind coming from the right.
-
You need to do some research on your own. Bullets in a fire launch the cartridge case as hard or harder than the bullets according to recent tests I have watched on TV. However, 308s belted in disintegrating link belts the bullets will pierce a 55 gal drum burn barrel. I KNOW this from personal experience.
I was on the nozzle in a sporting goods store fire, don't know how many hundreds of rounds cooked off but the only problems that existed were some primers from shotgun shells that came out with some force that could be dangerous to unprotected eyes/skin. All the rifle ammo that cooked blew the sides of the cases out and much of it didn't go far from where it was to start with, a few feet at most. Cartridges that cooked off in their paper & styrofoam factory boxes, sides swelled and split open on the brass. No evidence was ever found from projectiles moving more than a few inches from were the case ruptured. Perhaps with a very strong steel cartridge case and an insufficient crimp on the bullet maybe but this would be an exception rather than the rule.
This was some years back and people used to throw "bad" or maybe not bad, ammo in burn barrels along the company "street". Belted 308 would make holes in the burn barrel, did they come all the way out, did they exit with much force if they did I do not know. I just know what the barrels looked like. This finally stopped after we got a new crop of officers and a 1st SGT. Some one apparently put a frag in one and it went off just after a friend walked into the bunker. Walking by with them going "bang-bang from burning ammo was "normal". The frag kinda "broke the spell" so to speak and we moved to another base with no burn barrels.
Dan
-
Dan.
I think the gut was on top of the grand canyon shooting straight down. ;D
-
this topic has really fired up you boys. to throw in my 2 cents, i started ml becaused shooting deer with a scoped .308 simply was too easy. i do not like seeing the tv hunting shows where someone drops a deer at 400 or 500 yards. to me that is not hunting, thats long range target shooting. hunting is getting within feet of an animal in their enviroment and overcoming their natural defenses. pitting you against them. that is what i enjoy. working within the limits of my equipment, range, one shot, and taking game is to me interesting. anymore, being out, enjoying the day is the goal, if i do get something great, if not, i had a good time anyway. there my 3 cents. irish.
-
Irish - that's why we call it gopher shooting, not gopher hunting.
: Sniping isn't hunting but rather a dirty trick on the subject being shot and an art all in itself. I don't like to see long range shooting of big game either - too much can go wrong. I'd rather hunt to within 100 yards or closer - real hunting is getitng within 20 yards for a bow shot.
-
I am like You and Irish. I got sated on the use of a scoped 270. Deer season became a ritual of going out to get meat almost similar to butchering a beef. I have shot a lot of deer with a lot of different guns. There is darn little difference in modern guns that are scoped. Bow hunting is the ultimate practical challenge, but I have a 17 year old daughter that still likes to hunt and uses a 300 Savage I built up for her. So I will hunt with ML's this year. I had to play with cast bullets in old military bolt actions for a while but they are still modern. ML's that I build myself are fun again. While archery is a challenge, I still like the feel of a rifle butt against my shoulder. We can talk about use of a ML for long range shooting, but practically speaking you would have to be able to judge the range very accurately, as you say too much can go wrong. Also it is the limitations of the firearm that makes it hunting. Wasn't it Colorado that made the 50 BMG rifles illegal for hunting for the reason that they are no longer considered fair chase?
DP