AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Dphariss on July 08, 2008, 04:52:01 AM
-
I started thinking about the shots fired at Bristish officers during the Revolution and wondered just how hard 300 yard shots are. Using the killing of Fraser and Bemis Heights as my shot to reproduce. It is claimed that Murphy or one of Morgan's other riflemen killed Fraser at this distance.
Using a 50 caliber rifle I did some testing. First I consulted my ballistics program which seems to be in error with PRBs.
But anyway I fired 5 shots at 295 yards (laser) today and a "bad guy" target I buy at the local gunshop with 495 RB and 80 gr volume of FFFG Swiss.
I fired one shot with no hold over hoping to pick up the bullet strike. No luck so I fired another shot at a different spot and found the rifle was shooting several feet flatter than I thought it would. Guess I should have run it over the chronograph.
Holding 4 ft+- high and about 4 ft into the wind I fired 3 more shots. One would have killed or wounded his horse/hit the saddle or missed depending on stance. One was about 8" off the bad guy up wind at 10 o'clock and one was about 1.5" into the K-5 zone on the target at 2 o'clock from the center of the K-5.
I judged this a success, the shots fired aside from the 2 sighters were very much like that described for the shots fired at Fraser. Some luck involved of course but it DID work as detailed. Had I known the rifle better no sighters would have been needed. But 300 yards is farther than I generally shoot.
This using a Suburban hood for a rest.
Dan
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FRedcoat.jpg&hash=8f8e466112260415162534ad94c8b759591809a2)
-
Dan,
Thanks for the report. I to enjoy doing test like this. Sometimes we surprise ourself with the results, but then come to realize that, yes, why wouldn't these test be accurate to a degree of how history records they happened.
Perhaps after Rendezvous, our ALR Chunk Match, and this months local club match,,, maybe in August I can get back to some of my own testing.
Again, thanks for the report! :)
-
You even painted him red, good show!!!
-
It was an easy 'feat' to consistantly hit a 2' diameter steel plate at 300 metrs with the .69. My third leaf was zero'd at that range with 165g.r 2F and a 480gr. round ball. I can tell you that 14 bore would have killed him and the guy behind him as well, probably.
-
Here is some back ground on the killing of Gen. Fraser... We do know that targets can be hit out to 300 yards with the round ball. Regardless if it is ever determined 12 rods or 300 to 500 yards,,, a shot was made as was history. I thought this read was pretty interesting;
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2003_summer_fall/fraser.htm#_edn1
-
It was an easy 'feat' to consistantly hit a 2' diameter steel plate at 300 metrs with the .69. My third leaf was zero'd at that range with 165g.r 2F and a 480gr. round ball. I can tell you that 14 bore would have killed him and the guy behind him as well, probably.
The 16 bore shoots really well at 180-200 in "shoot the rock" testing. Easy to hit stuff at this distance with one leaf up on the sight. Guess I should put it on paper. It will break 2"+ thick limestone at this distance with hardened balls. Its by far the most impressive RB rifle I have ever shot. Hitting a man sized silhouette at 200 with this rifle would be very easy.
Have not tried it at 300 though I have another leaf that should be on at 250-300.
The three shots at 300 with the 50 would have gone into about 30-36".
I may try my son's 45 at 300 just for fun.
May take a larger piece of plywood out for a target backing.
Dan
-
Here is some back ground on the killing of Gen. Fraser... We do know that targets can be hit out to 300 yards with the round ball. Regardless if it is ever determined 12 rods or 300 to 500 yards,,, a shot was made as was history. I thought this read was pretty interesting;
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2003_summer_fall/fraser.htm#_edn1
As with many such things 100-200 years out the legend often takes over.
Morgan's account of sending several men is probably the accurate one. He wanted Fraser taken out and sent a detachment to shoot him. I doubt even the men in the group knew who actually shot him if they shot together.
Dan
-
The 16 bore shoots really well at 180-200 in "shoot the rock" testing. Easy to hit stuff at this distance with one leaf up on the sight. Guess I should put it on paper. It will break 2"+ thick limestone at this distance with hardened balls. Its by far the most impressive RB rifle I have ever shot. Hitting a man sized silhouette at 200 with this rifle would be very easy.
Have not tried it at 300 though I have another leaf that should be on at 250-300.
The three shots at 300 with the 50 would have gone into about 30-36".
I may try my son's 45 at 300 just for fun.
May take a larger piece of plywood out for a target backing.
Dan
What style of flip up rear sight do you use? Can I assume it is similar to Daryl's English express sight?
Thanks,
J.D.
-
Here is some back ground on the killing of Gen. Fraser... We do know that targets can be hit out to 300 yards with the round ball. Regardless if it is ever determined 12 rods or 300 to 500 yards,,, a shot was made as was history. I thought this read was pretty interesting;
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2003_summer_fall/fraser.htm#_edn1
As with many such things 100-200 years out the legend often takes over.
Morgan's account of sending several men is probably the accurate one. He wanted Fraser taken out and sent a detachment to shoot him. I doubt even the men in the group knew who actually shot him if they shot together.
Dan
I agree Dan. I also believe the killing of Fraser was at that time a feat equal to the British sinking the Bismarck in WWII... The effect it would have on morale for the Americans would have to be tremendous.
Testing the potential legend -vs- potential fact is what makes this part of muzzle loading very interesting, and I would urge everyone who has an interest in historical marksmanship to try these feats of both the potential legend and potential facts. It's a great study!
-
The 16 bore shoots really well at 180-200 in "shoot the rock" testing. Easy to hit stuff at this distance with one leaf up on the sight. Guess I should put it on paper. It will break 2"+ thick limestone at this distance with hardened balls. Its by far the most impressive RB rifle I have ever shot. Hitting a man sized silhouette at 200 with this rifle would be very easy.
Have not tried it at 300 though I have another leaf that should be on at 250-300.
The three shots at 300 with the 50 would have gone into about 30-36".
I may try my son's 45 at 300 just for fun.
May take a larger piece of plywood out for a target backing.
Dan
What style of flip up rear sight do you use? Can I assume it is similar to Daryl's English express sight?
Thanks,
J.D.
Its an English style rifle. I built the sights. Standing bar rear with 2 leaves at the rear. Need to weld up the notch in the standing bar. The smaller notches in the leaves seem to work better for me. Front is fairly wide made of silver with an iron base. I wanted something I could pickup easy.
Dan
-
Long range hits with ML round balls have occurred. People actually used to do so with other rifles before scopes came in. Hitting a clay pidgeon at 100 yards with iron sights amazed one of my firends sons. At 500 meters my son preferred the iron sights over the military red dot. What really messes things up is that if you have a sight or a hold over for a given range, even a little cross wind can blow off a round ball, especially the small bores. British sportsmen have been recorded extolling the virtues of their big bores for western hunting. Of course they had a contingent of servants that also set their silver and lace graced tables and lugged all that lead around that the American traders and hunters did not have. Where practical I think the bigger bores are better. Revolutionary war rifles varied in bore diameter, but some were in the neighborhood of 60 caliber. Also, if hit, the individual was apt to die as medicines back then were often counterproductive, as in leeching. More losses occured from dysentary and dissertion than combat.
DP
-
We routinely shoot at 200 to 300 yards with our long rifles. These are historically accurate recreations of rifles that would have been modern in 1770.
For 100 yards I hold dead on. For 150 yards I hold 1/2 of my front sight above the rear and then put the top of the front sight where I want to hit. For 200 yards I put all of the front sight blade above the rear sight and put the top of the front sight where I want to hit. For 300 yards I hold with the top of the rear sight below the base of the front sight by a distance equal to the height of the front sightand put the top of the front sight on what I want to hit. Aiming is a two stage affair: get the sights properly alligned with a solid cheek-weld and then put the front sight on the target. It is Elmer Kieth style shooting. You will be amazed at what you can hit this way! By the way, I am shooting a 47 inch long, 54 caliber Getz barrel, rifled with radius grooves one turn in 72 inches. My load is a 520 swaged ball with an .020 patch lubed with bees wax/bear grease over 85 grains of GOEX FFFg.
I would not try shooting deer beyond 100 yards, but woodchucks and coyotes are a different matter!
Best Regards,
John Cholin
-
Long-John- that is the method Taylor and I used back in the 70's to present for long range shooting with fixed sights. Taylor's .62 Hawken 1/2 stock had a wear bar on the top flat from rubbing on the wooden bench when loading, that when the gun was mounted in the shooting position, made a white bar appear across the barrel. Holding the rifle with the front sigth proud so the rear sight's top edge was touching this bright line and with the front sight on the target, gave a 325yard zero. It was easier to do that to explain it. Yes, this is Elmer's system and one I used to advantage with my .44 mag. for long range shooting at the same 325 yard target. It was usually good for 5 out of 6 hits from Elmer's reclining-sitting-position, reveolver between the knees. The target was about 18" in diameter. We routinely hit it with Taylor's .62 and my .50 Bauska barrel's 1/2 stock as well as Tracy's .36 Seneca with 128gr. slugs.
: Long range shooting is a blast with a muzzleloader.
-
Long range hits with ML round balls have occurred. People actually used to do so with other rifles before scopes came in. Hitting a clay pidgeon at 100 yards with iron sights amazed one of my firends sons. At 500 meters my son preferred the iron sights over the military red dot. What really messes things up is that if you have a sight or a hold over for a given range, even a little cross wind can blow off a round ball, especially the small bores. British sportsmen have been recorded extolling the virtues of their big bores for western hunting. Of course they had a contingent of servants that also set their silver and lace graced tables and lugged all that lead around that the American traders and hunters did not have. Where practical I think the bigger bores are better. Revolutionary war rifles varied in bore diameter, but some were in the neighborhood of 60 caliber. Also, if hit, the individual was apt to die as medicines back then were often counterproductive, as in leeching. More losses occured from dysentary and dissertion than combat.
DP
Ruxton had a 24 bore. I think Stewart had a 20. Some came west with larger bores. A 24 bore was not considered all that big by the British of the period, basically a deer stalking rifle. Both these men were apparently pretty good with a rifle. Stewart claimed his 20 bore killed more meat on less powder and lead than the American Rifles at one of the Rendezvous he attended in the 1830s.
I agree that Stewart did not hurt much for funding. But he was not overly equipped as I recall as some of the higher end europeans were. When he inherited he pretty much staid home.
I wonder what caliber the man was shooting to killed the "bugle man's" horse at 400 yards in Hangers account. Would need to be 54 or larger to pull off such a shot. Col Hanger was a rifleman and one of the best shots in England so his account is not that of a neophyte where rifles are concerned.
Dan
-
I recall reading that account as well, Dan. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in Germany wasn't the riflemen there using Jaeger Rifles and routinely holding rifle matches out to 200 yards?
It does make one wonder what caliber and rifle was being employed when the "bugle man's" horse was shot? Could very well have been a large bore Jaeger?
-
I recall reading that account as well, Dan. Now someone correct me if I'm wrong, but in Germany wasn't the riflemen there using Jaeger Rifles and routinely holding rifle matches out to 200 yards?
It does make one wonder what caliber and rifle was being employed when the "bugle man's" horse was shot? Could very well have been a large bore Jaeger?
The ball could just have hit some magic spot and got a major artery, but a 54 is getting pretty weak at this distance. I have read accounts of African Elephants being killed with 22rf. Don't know if it was TRUE but anything is possible.
Dan
-
We know for a fact, that a .54 RB, driven by 100gr. of RS Pyrodex, will penetrate to the off side of a big bull moose, piercing a rib on the off side, to come to rest under the hide. If you've not seen a moose rib, it's about 3/8" in diameter and up to about 1 3/4" wide on a big bull, in the middle of the rib cage. They have about 3/4" of muscle between them and are very springie, not ridgidly held in place. The range of the above mentioned shot was 170yards. I saw it happen from about 800 yards away while we were 'dressing' another big bull this one had been fighting with. I figured the foot pounds of energy at impact to be approximately 210. So much for needing 1,000 for a deer and 1,500FPE for moose or elk as most of the gun-writers like to quote.
With enough weight, ie: a large diameter, a round ball could be lethal as long as it's in the air, depending on the recipient.
The US military techy's of the 1880's found that as long as a military ball or bullet would make a 3/8" dent in pine, it would be lethal to a man.
-
When I read Hangers acccount I believe somewhere there was a comment about it being a long rifle. For some reason people seem to think that smallbores predominated in the East. In my book on Kentucky Rifles by Johnson there are several pictures of large bore early rifles. The JP Beck pictures I have been looking at closely include rifles of over 50 cal. I had a blueprint of a 62 cal Southern rifle that included the comments that they were big bore because powder and shot were too expensive to waste on small game. It was a Revolutionary war dated rifle. You cannot generalize about the calibers shot during that time. The smaller bores got more popular in the East as it became more settled, which it was in some areas and in others still pretty wild during the Revolution.
When I made the comment about medicine of the day I should have been more clear. A round ball at 300 yards hitting vitals would kill him. A round ball that did not hit vitals but still penetrated would likely kill him from infection. Even if he was hit by a 45 at that range it would have been lethal. A gut shot if you will would not have to go deep, just break open an intestine. Even in the war between the states, more did not survive hits than did due to infection.
DP
-
When I read Hangers acccount I believe somewhere there was a comment about it being a long rifle. For some reason people seem to think that smallbores predominated in the East. In my book on Kentucky Rifles by Johnson there are several pictures of large bore early rifles. The JP Beck pictures I have been looking at closely include rifles of over 50 cal. I had a blueprint of a 62 cal Southern rifle that included the comments that they were big bore because powder and shot were too expensive to waste on small game. It was a Revolutionary war dated rifle. You cannot generalize about the calibers shot during that time. The smaller bores got more popular in the East as it became more settled, which it was in some areas and in others still pretty wild during the Revolution.
DP
I can't find the exact quote but an English officer claimed that he never saw an American rifle larger than 30 to the pound.
Now we know this is not 100% correct. But it is accurate. I think it was Hanger since he claimed to have examined a great many rifles but cannot find the citation.
Why would someone of limited means shoot deer (for example) with a 62 when a 45 or 50 will kill just as well on 1/2 the lead??
Example. I have shot quite a number of deer sized animals with 50, 54 and 58 RB rifles. They typically run 30-50 yards when shot through the lungs. This also holds true to many cartridge guns both modern and archaic. While I have only shot one deer with it I have a rifle that shoots a .662 ball. This deer shot at the base of the throat at about 40 yards ran 55 long steps when the top of its heart gone. This falls into my "typical" run distance in fact just a little over.
I have shot deer through the lungs at 140 steps with a 50 caliber RB the deer made 40 yards+-. Thus from the standpoint of a hunter in the east where shots are generally under 100 there is no real advantage to a bore larger than 50 even for larger game with good shot placement.
We have numerous surviving rifles from the Colonial era in near new condition that are 42-48 caliber. We have a written account by John Joseph Henry in "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution" by Huddleston that details a rifle he bought to replace one lost in a river crossing while enroute to Quebec. It was a short barreled rifle of 45 to the pound (155 grains or about 47-48 caliber) and from how he wrote the account in his Journal it was larger than the one he lost.
We must think ECONOMICS. If a 50 caliber ball will kill any game you hunt you do not need a larger bore.
Then we have the "freshed barrel" factor. Freshing i.e. recutting rifling was very common. It will enlarge the barrel 1-2 calibers every time. if we have a rifle that was made in 1770, used until 1830+- then converted to percussion and used even more we can have a rifle that started out as a 44-50 and is now 54-58-60. If the barrel was too thin to re-rifle it was likely bored smooth so it could at least be used as a shotgun. Some of these rifles were in service for generations.
I think a lot of people over look this when looking into calibers of surviving rifles. Look in Kindig's book at the number of rifle Reedy freshed.
I think there were more rifles originally made smaller than 50 than above.
Then as now it was a matter of choice so THERE IS NO RULE. Even today with the number of surviving guns that have been recut and bored cailbers over 54 are rare.
Look at the American frontier of 1870-1900. People did not buy the heaviest caliber they could get in a cartridge rifle. They generally bought what would get them by. Sharps sold mostly 44-75 (77) and 45-75 (70) rifles The next to smallest 44 and the smallest 45 they made. The bigger cartridges were rare. The 1886 Winchester was available in about 8 different cartridges. But you see a LOT of 40-65s and 45-70s. The ammo was cheap and they worked well enough.
If I were a long hunter going to Kentucky to kill deer for the hides I would not take a rifle over 50 (a caliber I really like) and probably would use a 45. Maybe a 40. I can carry FAR more shots in my horn and pouch than with a 62. The 16 bore rifle's pouch gets MUCH heavier when 20 balls are added. I really like this rifle but it is FAR more expensive to shoot than a 50 or 54 and it is off the scale compared to a 40-45.
Dan
-
It is interesting that a lot of Beck rifles were built at about 50 caliber. Dickerts were shown at between 45 and 50. there were also a few 54's thrown in. An article I just reread about the guns carried by the mountain men were mostly about 54 something like about 2 out of 3 by one maker. These calibers seem to predominate in areas where shot and powder was to be conserved. Likely the vast majority of rifles in the Revolution were in that caliber range. But since they were hand made there were also a few bigger and a few smaller. Also your British officer may have been stationed in an area where the smaller bores were more popular. How many guns were freshed? Who knows? I just did not think that the rifleman that Hanger was observing used a Jaeger. It was most likely a longrifle of 50 cal. give or take. It did kill or disable a horse at that range but where was the horse hit?
DP
DP
-
Since the subject of original ball size has come up, here are all the period quotes I have found so far:
In 1804 Captain Barber, commander of the Duke of Cumberlan's Corps of Sharp-Shooters, published "Instructions for the Formation and Exercise of Volunteer Sharp-Shooters", in London. In that book he comments on rifles, and marksmanship, as well as tactics. Barber was a veteran of the American Revolution, and although his work was published in 1804, his is a period source none the less. Here's what he wrote,...,
"The rifle guns of America and Germany were formerly considered superior to those of any other country; and it must be admitted, that the long rifles of the Americans throw a ball 100 or 150 yards with more truth [accuracy], than the military rifles of this country [England]...,"
"The advantage in the American rifles, for short ranges [150 yards or less] is derived from the length of the barrel, which by having a longer continuance of the spiral grooves, more completely ensures its [the bullet's] rotary motion; it's length also by extending the two sights further asunder, diminishes the angle of any deviation that may happen in taking aim, and the smallness of the balls (generally from thirty to forty to the pound) requiring but little explosive force, further contribute to the nice preservation of the level [moderate recoil]."
Col. George Hanger- "no larger than thirty-six to the pound: at least I never saw one of larger caliber, and I have seen many hundreds and hundreds."
Isaac Weld- "thirty to sixty to the pound"
Rev. Joseph Doddridge- "few carried more than forty-five to the pound, and bullets of less size were not thought sufficiently heavy for hunting or war."
Make of that what you will. Weld is describing rifles from the 1790s, so things may have changed in the interim. I think Barbar was writing earlier than Hanger, and sounds more reliable, though that may be my personal biases speaking (Hanger was not particularly bright, I believe, and his statement cannot be taken literally in any case.)
-
Two things stand out in those observations. First the calibers ran between about 42 (60 to a pound to 55) . Also the ranges normally shot were not all that far as Barber claims 150 yards as a distance of accuracy. There is a picture of a rifle made by Beck that is now 60 caliber and it looks heavy as if it were meant to be built to a large barrel. Most rifles he built were currently about 50 cal. My deer hunting experience parrallels that of Dpariss in how far they run. However, when the East was less settled they had larger game such as Elk. Also further North you had moose. That is why I think calibers may have also varied, in that the original 13 colonies were far more settled than those on the fringes. Also the calibers did start to get smaller in later periods as to 50 caliber or less, down to 36 calibers or so. Lewis carried a 36 on his expedition.
DP
-
3 or 4 years ago I read a post by someone who had looked at a few hundred original guns that had data published about them and found the mean caliber to be .54 I don't remember the Date parameters, but it seemed that earlier guns and guns made/used in longer settled areas were smaller bore than those used on the frontiers....
This might be an intereesting research project for KRA.
-
Lets look at more recent times and the needs being met. My father was not "into" guns and had what he needed on an Iowa farm. He had a 12 gauge and a .22. deer took too much effort to hunt (which is why people farmed and raised their own meat.) The 22 was carried on his tractor as a gun of opportunity to use on fox and ground squirrels. The shotgun for rabbits and an occaisional pheasant. My uncles in Missouri hunted deer with shotguns (admittedly because they had to) and owned a 22. Those of us "into" guns do not think like folks that keep one or two around for their needs. While I draw my own conslusions from these experiences and look at settled areas in history I feel that this type of armament may have been pretty standard or its equivalent. Western states are more rifle oriented as the needs are different. There we see historically the old 30-30, 25-35 or whatever. A friend used to talk about an old timer in Northern MN during the depression that even took his 32 special to the outhouse in case he saw a deer to supplement his larder. Thats why I think looking at guns in the past is also very regional.
DP
-
This was a very interesting thread to read. Thanks Dphariss....great test/pics and comments by all.
-
3 or 4 years ago I read a post by someone who had looked at a few hundred original guns that had data published about them and found the mean caliber to be .54 I don't remember the Date parameters, but it seemed that earlier guns and guns made/used in longer settled areas were smaller bore than those used on the frontiers....
This might be an intereesting research project for KRA.
In looking at the reported calibers of a couple of hundred guns from "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850" and 'A true American Heritage in Picture" I found most were under 50 caliber. If graphed there were major spikes at 45 and 50. But this included only rifles originally built as flint and had full octagonal barrels. Bore sizes under 44 are rare as well and this sample includes later guns. About 21% were 50 caliber, just over 12% were 45. 9% were 52 and about 7.5% were 54, just over 6% were 48 caliber. 58 was another spike at 5% tied with 44 caliber. 47 caliber was just over 4%. 40 caliber was just over 3% everything else was less. This was a 281 rifle sample. 86 were smooth bores.
32, 35, 36, 37, 43, 59,62 70 and 74 calibers were 3 rifles each or less. There were 60- 50 calibers and 37- 45 calibers.
Lewis found his 36 to be too small for most uses in the west and it lost accuracy and was recut during the expedition.
Kindig's book as a larger percentage of SB guns. I have listed the calibers but have not done the math on these yet and likely will not. Too many smooth bores.
Dan
-
i feel guns evolved due to the region where migration took place and as peoples needs had to be met as well as protecting your family.with powder and lead being a hard item to replenish and the terrain which they made there lives being more rugged they had to find a happy medium.longer barrels,smaller caliber.more round balls per pound,rifling,longer shots,more accurate.wasnt a whole lot of room for waste and making due with what was available.
-
Dan, Appreciate your doing and reporting your findings.... now we just need to sort by region and date , eh? ;D
-
Dan, Appreciate your doing and reporting your findings.... now we just need to sort by region and date , eh? ;D
Given the percentages I don't think region is important. It took a certain size ball to do a certain job no matter where you were. The later guns were likely smaller but some early guns were not all that large in the bore.
In "Steel Canvas" by R.L. Wilson we find a near new condition Peter Resor circa 1770 that is 42 caliber and an A. Albrecht listed as 48. If these rifles are funneled it is possible they are as small as 40 and 45.
This book is worth having since it is mostly in color and quite a few rifles, pistols, horns, tomahawks and knives are pictured. 70 pages or so most with at least one photo and many with full page photos. Not the best photography but its mostly color.
People who take the time will find that the few surviving Rev War guns that saw little use are not all that large in *most* cases.
There are guns of all calibers from about 60 down and some very large anomalous examples. But even the Schreit rifle, if it were a Rev War rifle taken to England in the 1780s had been in service long enough to have been recut at least once and could easily have been smaller when new.
This is a field of interest that always starts discussion. Then as now some people preferred a smaller ball about the size of a pea and some preferred a ball the size of a cranberry. A friend found this quote somewhere though I have no citation.
When I was a lot younger in the common wisdom was the the Rev War rifles were all 54 and up. This has proven to not be the case.
This first deer my son killed was with a 45 caliber rifle with 45 grains of powder. One shot kill deer ran 80-100 yards and piled up ball penetrated to the off side hide. The 50 caliber ball at 750+- fps will penetrate to the far side of a mule deers chest even at near a 45 degree angle. 50 calibers have been used on elk and buffalo. As with any firearm its not what you shoot so much as how accurately the shot is placed.
We tend to think of hunting and war but we must remember that rifle shooting was also a pastime and a sport. A heavy rifle can actually be a handicap for this. Both from the standpoint of recoil and how much powder it takes to shoot it. Lead was often recovered and reused.
Finally we must remember we can only judge by the rifles that have been examined and the caliber accurately determined (another problem). I am sure there are American Rifles in England that are unknown to students of the longrifle.
I better get to the shop and work at some corving. Or smooth the living room ceiling for painting or do some other honey do type thing.
Dan
-
We can only try to deduce from rifles that survived and possibly limited literature of the times what calibers they were. Are the rifles that survived a normal representation of those that existed? In the antiques thread I am seeing a few examples of less adorned originals than those shown in the books I have seen. Kindig was a collecter but liked to collect the better or more elaborate examples of the types. Also when you assume that every rifle was recut then you can argue that all started as small bores. While a lot of rifles were recut. a lot of rifles do not exist for our study. I really question how much history the more elaborate rifles have had to survive and how much use they saw. The heavier plains rifles such as the Hawken were dismantled so that the barrels could be used for crow bars in the mining camps. One individual claimed that a barrel signed Hawken was found as a fencepost. When I look in my books at the later period rifles, such as the Bedford schools that they are smaller caliber such as 32 -38 as compared to the earlier rifles. As stated Clark's 36 was not found to be adequate in their expedition and would not have been in the frontier areas of the East. A 45 is adequate for deer and I would not hesitate using one, but for elk and moose they may be considered limited. While I think today's standards may be a little extreme for what is needed, my 40 plus years experience in hunting deer and other critters has shown me that using an adequate caliber is also desirable. You can take out about any critter with a 22 but the shot placement has to be very precise and you have to give up opportunities. Same for the small bores. The 50 to 54 calibers seem to have been found to handle a pretty wide variety of game. While I think many of todays hunters have been contaminated by what is needed, the popularity among the local roundball hunters of the 50's and 54's cannot be denied and may have existed back then.
DP
-
Hello all! Just got back from Chadron Fur Trade Days Rendezvous and have been catching up on a couple topics here.
While reading the new postings it occured to me that when the Colonies went to war with England its a given that many colonist bought their rifles with them and some were issued muskets, and perhaps as the war drug on some may have been issued rifles.
My thought is, as the war went on and materials to make war became less available,,, did the gun makers turn to smaller calibers to fill the hands of the Colonial Riflemen - stretching what raw materials they had available to them at the time, and perhaps ventured into the smaller calibers?
It has always been my understanding that the smaller calibers came about as America settled the lands and pretty much hunted off all the big game so a "small game" rifle was needed for rabbits & squirrels.
Now just to jump ahead a bit in history. Sam Colt thought that a .31, .36, and .44 revolvers were all considered man stoppers for not only close range self defense, but the .36 and .44 for the attack as well. His small caliber reasoning would have to have been rooted from somewheres in previous history that he knew of - of that time.
Was he drawing his ideas from rifle calibers known to be man stoppers/game getters?
Just a few things to think about. This line of thought may have no bearing what-so-ever? :)
-
The 31 caliber Baby Dragoon was considered one of the most popular revolvers of the time. Likely because most folks that carry a gun for self defense never needed to use one. It was small, handy and easy to carry. It had ballistics similar to a 25 auto and likely would have killed someone in those times by infection. It would have made a good rabbit gun if you could hit one with it. While the 36 was a very popular caliber during the war between the states and favored by Tennessee general Nathan Bedford Forest, there was an article claiming that a British officer was killed in India by a sword after emptying 6 rounds into the chest of his assailant. The walker was invented because Mexican Lancers were perforating Rangers armed with Patersons. Walker was killed later by a lancer. A wise man onetime stated that only a fool would bring a pistol to a gun fight.
One thing pointed out was that gusnsmiths did a lot of "barrel freshing". Among the reasons for freshing a barrel is that they were shot out (which I think very few were) or had a rusted, pitted bore that needed redoing (very likely) and also very likely they made small bores into bigger bores which may have been done because of disenchantment with small bores.
DP
-
The 31 caliber Baby Dragoon was considered one of the most popular revolvers of the time. Likely because most folks that carry a gun for self defense never needed to use one. It was small, handy and easy to carry. It had ballistics similar to a 25 auto and likely would have killed someone in those times by infection. It would have made a good rabbit gun if you could hit one with it. While the 36 was a very popular caliber during the war between the states and favored by Tennessee general Nathan Bedford Forest, there was an article claiming that a British officer was killed in India by a sword after emptying 6 rounds into the chest of his assailant. The walker was invented because Mexican Lancers were perforating Rangers armed with Patersons. Walker was killed later by a lancer. A wise man onetime stated that only a fool would bring a pistol to a gun fight.
One thing pointed out was that gusnsmiths did a lot of "barrel freshing". Among the reasons for freshing a barrel is that they were shot out (which I think very few were) or had a rusted, pitted bore that needed redoing (very likely) and also very likely they made small bores into bigger bores which may have been done because of disenchantment with small bores.
DP
There are notable successes with the Paterson and the various Colt percussions.
There are various accounts of similar failure incidents. Reports from the Philippines and other shootings with the 38 Long Colt resulted in the adoption of the 45 ACP. However I read an account of a jeweler who was being robbed and knife point. In desperation he pulled his 25 auto and fired two shots and got 2 kills. Neither perp got out of the store. Shot placement.
Finally we must look at what LaGarde (of the Thompson/LaGarde tests) said about stopping power. He stated that nothing smaller than a 3" solid shot was sure to stop a man.
Barrels both rusted and were shot out. Iron barrels when subjected to high temp and pressure when firing BP actually absorb carbon resulting in very thin, near molecule thick, "casehardened" surface that then is washed off and renewed by blow by gas from subsequent shots. Or so I have been told by someone who has studied such things. Steel barrels tolerate this better.
Corrosion was also a factor since it was not always possible to detail clean the bore after firing and maintain personal security.
Dan
-
We can only try to deduce from rifles that survived and possibly limited literature of the times what calibers they were. Are the rifles that survived a normal representation of those that existed? In the antiques thread I am seeing a few examples of less adorned originals than those shown in the books I have seen. Kindig was a collecter but liked to collect the better or more elaborate examples of the types. Also when you assume that every rifle was recut then you can argue that all started as small bores. While a lot of rifles were recut. a lot of rifles do not exist for our study. I really question how much history the more elaborate rifles have had to survive and how much use they saw. The heavier plains rifles such as the Hawken were dismantled so that the barrels could be used for crow bars in the mining camps. One individual claimed that a barrel signed Hawken was found as a fencepost. When I look in my books at the later period rifles, such as the Bedford schools that they are smaller caliber such as 32 -38 as compared to the earlier rifles. As stated Clark's 36 was not found to be adequate in their expedition and would not have been in the frontier areas of the East. A 45 is adequate for deer and I would not hesitate using one, but for elk and moose they may be considered limited. While I think today's standards may be a little extreme for what is needed, my 40 plus years experience in hunting deer and other critters has shown me that using an adequate caliber is also desirable. You can take out about any critter with a 22 but the shot placement has to be very precise and you have to give up opportunities. Same for the small bores. The 50 to 54 calibers seem to have been found to handle a pretty wide variety of game. While I think many of todays hunters have been contaminated by what is needed, the popularity among the local roundball hunters of the 50's and 54's cannot be denied and may have existed back then.
DP
Study of surviving guns is just that, a study of guns that were not used up or scrapped. I know of a man finding Sharps rifle barrel being driven into the ground for a barn door stop.
Another significant rifle in local history (another Sharps) was lost when a cabin burned it was this used as a fence tightener until it the wires were cut and it disappeared.
A man I knew who was in his 80s in the 1960s told me when he returned after WW-I all his Kentuckys were gone but one stock "from one of the good guns" and one that was in very poor shape. Since only a stock was left I wonder if the barrels went for scrap. I never asked how many he had had. I was 16-17 at the time.
What we have left is just what someone stored away in some attic for generations or someone in the family hung on to grandpas old rifle etc.
Remember that after WW-1 some original flintlock rifles were still in use as primary hunting rifles. Think this is in Cline's book. Cline re-bored/rifled and freshed original rifles.
Dan
-
For those interested in such things, I ahe read more than one of Edward Marshal's studies of actual shootings and incidents in his research on "stopping power" He made the comment that only a fool would purpously take a pistol to a gun fight. His results are surprising on both ends of the spectrum. Smaller pistols like the 32's were better than expected but not real great and the big ones were not as great as people thought, especially the 45 ACP. The stories about replacement of the 38 colt in the by breaking out the old 45 Peacemakers in the Phillipines leaves us to believe that that cured all woes. In fact the Moros were religous zealots somewhat like what we see in the Mideast today that wore a tight wrapping around their midsection that would act like MAST trousers and keep the blood pressure up in the upper torso. In one case a British visiter wrote about one chasing him around in a boat taking all 10 rounds from a Lee Enfield. Little known is the fact that the US troops filed the noses off their Krag ammo to make soft points AKA as in the Dum Dum arsenal in India. The 45's really weren't all that great either. The 303 British and the 30-40 Krag were abysmal failures in the Kinetic Energy theory as they replaced 45 caliber black powder rifles of 45-70 range that had less energy. I know this is not really relevant to a muzzle loading forum except for the fact that it does point out that bigger bores have been found to be more effective that little bores of higher energy.
DP
-
Bigger holes mean more blood loss.
K
-
For those interested in such things, I ahe read more than one of Edward Marshal's studies of actual shootings and incidents in his research on "stopping power" He made the comment that only a fool would purpously take a pistol to a gun fight. His results are surprising on both ends of the spectrum. Smaller pistols like the 32's were better than expected but not real great and the big ones were not as great as people thought, especially the 45 ACP. The stories about replacement of the 38 colt in the by breaking out the old 45 Peacemakers in the Phillipines leaves us to believe that that cured all woes. In fact the Moros were religous zealots somewhat like what we see in the Mideast today that wore a tight wrapping around their midsection that would act like MAST trousers and keep the blood pressure up in the upper torso. In one case a British visiter wrote about one chasing him around in a boat taking all 10 rounds from a Lee Enfield. Little known is the fact that the US troops filed the noses off their Krag ammo to make soft points AKA as in the Dum Dum arsenal in India. The 45's really weren't all that great either. The 303 British and the 30-40 Krag were abysmal failures in the Kinetic Energy theory as they replaced 45 caliber black powder rifles of 45-70 range that had less energy. I know this is not really relevant to a muzzle loading forum except for the fact that it does point out that bigger bores have been found to be more effective that little bores of higher energy.
DP
If going to a gun fight bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
However, even a short barreled collapsable stock AR is hard to conceal. So my wife and I pack handguns.
Thompson and LaGarde found that while the HV loads with jacketed bullets would not drop a cow with a magazine full, they often would not even produce any real evidence the cow had been shot (30 Luger, 9mm Luger with a FP FMJ bullet and Colt 38 Auto). The 450 Ely, 476 and 45 Colt would put a cow down in 3-4 shots to the body. The 450/476 are both very anemic by modern standards but the common denominator was a relatively large lead bullet.
Soft lead RBs tend to expand rapidly and they strike the target and they grip hide, hair etc and push this along. It is believed that this increases effectiveness.
This coupled with a larger initial diameter is why the RB is more effective than it really should be based on "modern" wisdom using energy.
This is an extremely complex field since the mind set and physical state effect "stopping power". If anyone has read "Pondoro" By John Taylor you will find he killed quite a number of African Lion and 2-3 Elephant with a 577-450 Martini-Henry Carbine with BP ammunition. He thought it worked very well on lion. As soon as he had enough ivory he bought better elephant medicine, however.
I recently watched a TV show in which 2 gelatine blocks where shot (Battlefield Detectives or some such). One with a 58 Minie and one with a 69 RB both with service charges. The Minie zipped through and scarcely moved the block. The 69 RB launched it several feet. Both these projectiles are pretty good at stopping their intended target. Both weigh about the same, but the RB with it's larger diameter and better velocity produced a lot more effect on the target.
Dan
-
I recall seeing that same test, Dan. At least one very similar to it. If I recall correctly the minie actually entered a second gelatin mould behind the first, giving rise to the effectiveness of the minie on the battlefield where it could actually take out two enemy soldiers in a rank and file attack.
The .69 was by no means a stand off. It was devastating if hit by this caliber and if I also recall I think they showed the effects of buck & ball on those gelatin moulds as well?
I think the final conclussion was that the minie could keep on killing because of its ability to pass through the human body and maintain enough velocity and foot pounds to kill or seriously wound the next soldier in the ranks behind the first. Even if it didn't kill him out right he would be subject to the bacteria from the first soldier hit and would most like die from infection.
This is not to say I don't believe the .69 couldn't pass through an enemy soldier and hit the next one, but I think the range would have to be much shorter for this to happen.
-
Edward Marshall had read the FBI studies, Thompson and Lagarde and others. His studies were shots fired agains human assailants. The FBI proved that if attacked by a armed and dangerous pig you need heavier bullets than if attacked by a human. The other study with cattle. In one of Marshall's studys on the 45, two men got mad at each other, one with a 45 and one with a 22 and shot it out. The one with the 45 scored 6 hits on the 22 user and died. The guy hit 6 times with a 45 (military patch) took a bus and went to the hospital for treatment. These are documented instances out of police files. In muzzle loading, the round ball does not tend to shatter like a jacketed bullet. I shot a deer with an 8mm mauser handload and found part of the bullet under the skin after it fragmented. Had I hit that deer with a 45 round ball it would have likely run the same distance and folded up in the same place, but the round ball would have remained intact. Big bore roundballs do the same thing. As to your the research comparing a 69 to a 58 minnie, you have the center punch effect. Hit a center punch and you dent steel to start a drill. Hit a pin punch just as hard and not dent. The transfer of Kinetic Energy is a complex combination of many things including the durability of the bullet. Mathematics says that if I hit a 40 pound steel target with 400 foot pound of energy it goes 10 feet. If hit by a bullet the bullet fragments and a lot of energy is used up on the bullet. Hit it with a metal piercing bullet and a lot of energy is used up on the other side of the target. I doubt if any bullet foing at 400 ftlbs will move a target 10 feet. Hit it with a big hammer that hard and you might. Energy is transferred over a larger area and little wasted on the hammer. There is some as you would feel it in the handle. Big bores hit with a durable bullet over a larger area.
DP
-
I recall seeing that same test, Dan. At least one very similar to it. If I recall correctly the minie actually entered a second gelatin mould behind the first, giving rise to the effectiveness of the minie on the battlefield where it could actually take out two enemy soldiers in a rank and file attack.
The .69 was by no means a stand off. It was devastating if hit by this caliber and if I also recall I think they showed the effects of buck & ball on those gelatin moulds as well?
I think the final conclussion was that the minie could keep on killing because of its ability to pass through the human body and maintain enough velocity and foot pounds to kill or seriously wound the next soldier in the ranks behind the first. Even if it didn't kill him out right he would be subject to the bacteria from the first soldier hit and would most like die from infection.
This is not to say I don't believe the .69 couldn't pass through an enemy soldier and hit the next one, but I think the range would have to be much shorter for this to happen.
The large bore musket balls were meant to pass through the man in the first rank and wound or kill the man behind him.
The problem with the Minie in actual military use is that it often veers wildly off track due the the very slow twist used. This was first noted during the Crimean War IIRC. Thus it might not exit its first victim on a path that would have it striking the man behind him.
My 16 bore rifle will penetrate about 30" of deer at 40 yards started at 1600 fps (about 1350 at 40+- yards). I suspect that it would do as well or better better at about 1000 since it would deform less.
Dan
-
The one with the 45 scored 6 hits on the 22 user and died. The guy hit 6 times with a 45 (military patch) took a bus and went to the hospital for treatment. These are documented instances out of police files.
I find it odd that when you find such reports, more often than not, the points of impact are not identified nor is the exact ammunition and bullet. Without knowing all the information, one cannot in any manner make any type of determination as to the results of the outcome and attempting to do such is pure foolishness. Just because "hits" were made does not mean that any of them were effective. Last time I was at the VA hospital, I sat next to a man who took 7 "hits" from a German with an 8x57JS machine gun before he sent the German on to the promise land his .45acp. Granted, the fellow next to me had some chunks of skin & muscle missing and he clearly suffered a lot from the wounds but it was also quite clear that none of the 8x57JS hits were fatal - could one then say that the 8x57JS isn't an effective man-stopper? Proven point that one cannot make a fair assumption of anything based on incomplete information. One can also not make any judgment based on only limited and select incidents as I have seen common whitetail deer take solid boiler room hits with the 7mmRemMag and .300WinMag yet continue to run for 150+ yards - selecting only those examples, one could make the biased claim that neither of these cartridges are effective on deer-size game. I seem to recall a well documented incident where a giant was killed dead by a stone from a simple hand sling - using just limited information, can we then make the claim that one hunting large dangerous game is best armed with a hand sling and a stone?
I am not trying to be rude here but when one applies logic and analysis to many of these arguments and claims, it quickly becomes apparent that the one making the claim or argument is either attempting to justify an ill conceived theory for some gain or they are showing little more than apathetic ignorance to the facts.
One of the fellows pushing modern in-line rifles with their sabot bullets makes the claim that round balls are ineffective and lack energy & velocity. The motive is not based on fact but on deliberate ignorance of fact for the sole purpose of personal monetary gain.
The same arguments were made concerning the 5.56x45 cartridge where fact was deliberately ignored and hype was being sold to those who were not simply purchased by Fairchild. The same willful and quite deliberate ignorance of fact remains in play yet today decades later every time some yahoo brings up "temporary cavity" and "hydrostatic shock". Neither of these can be proven terminally effective and all attempts to do such have provided clear and concise proof that neither claim has any merit. Proven fact, ballistics gel does in have the basic consistency of muscle but it does not replicate softer fat tissue and organs nor the harder ligaments and tendons let alone bone. B-gel also does not respond to bullet impacts in the same manner as living flesh because once the gel is displaced, the majority of it remains displaced giving very much false indications of permanent would channel results as much of the "temporary cavity" remains when the action stops and this does not happen with living flesh. Let's say every year 500 people die from blunt force trauma applied only to soft tissue yet in the same year there are 100 million incidents of soft tissue only blunt force trauma that do not result in death - using the complete information, one has no other alternative than to proclaim that blunt force trauma applied to soft tissue only has the potential to be fatal making it "possible" however the massive number of non-fatal incidents makes death from this type of injury much less "probable".
Thompson and LaGarde found that while the HV loads with jacketed bullets would not drop a cow with a magazine full, they often would not even produce any real evidence the cow had been shot (30 Luger, 9mm Luger with a FP FMJ bullet and Colt 38 Auto). The 450 Ely, 476 and 45 Colt would put a cow down in 3-4 shots to the body.
Again, no information on bullet type, load or where "in the body" the shots were placed as that can mean anywhere from the head to the tail. Incomplete information just as the switch from .38 to .45 in the Philippines is incomplete information. In every instance where this and similar incidents are brought up for discussion, the discussion lacks the critical information of projectile design. Yes, the .45 was less effective in the Philippines but for no other reason than the bullet design change, the same problem the .38 suffered from ... poor bullet design. This is clearly indicated where the 9x18 has much lower numbers on paper than the 9x19 yet the 9x18 is far more effective at producing terminal permanent wound channels than the 9x19 - no mystery to it, it's all in the bullet design that does not include the weight or velocity - The same is reason why the .303 British sucked so bad when it first came out, the problem was not with the cartridge but with the bullet design.
Now, putting this all together, one can quickly understand that the probability of a .58 mini causing a terminal wound is quite high yet when compared to the .575 RB, the fatal probability quickly turns in favor of the RB. Have you ever wondered why the original .45-70-500 bullets are built like they are and why that bullet shape carried over to the .30 Govt when it first came out yet the reasoning was quickly abandoned after 1900 only to result in serious terminal performance losses? Have you ever wondered why there is such a focus on energy numbers that only apply to paper rather than to actual permanent wound channel creation? Have you ever wondered why all the modern bullet mfg's completely ignore how much energy and wound channel depth and diameter is lost in the time it takes for their bullet noses to expand just to bore diameter?
Books are wonderful things and while the information they contain is valuable, more valuable is the amount of thought that is provoked by the information. When one fails to question even his own answers, he has become blinded by ignorance and apathetic to discovery.
-
You missed the point entirely. What Marshall was saying was that the 45 has been given a mystical quality of stopping power. Yet in this instance the user was killed after hitting his adversary 6 times. Most of the "hype" around the old 45 was that it would stop someone no matter where you hit them. He found in his results that the standard lead or FMJ of 45 ACP, 44 special, 45 colt and the 38 special were all about the same at 65% and were only effective by his criteria of one shot stops which were hits to the torso. Over the years Marshall had received numerous accounts for a variety of calibers some over 200 instances. The most effective ones were high speed HP's. But humans are bipeds and studies on quadrupeds are not valid for this type of study, which is why Marshall and Sanow, both police officers, started their studies.
Also, the differences in the one test was between a 58 minnie and a 69 roundball, not a 58 roundball. When I had my 12 gauge and Brown Bess, I quit shooting at gongs at the clubs I went to as they would absolutely demolish the gongs. Maxi ball and other smaller bore rifle projectiles would not even come close. An individual that built a 69 rifle was doing the same thing. These big projectiles retain a lot of mass even when hitting a steel plate and spread the energy over a larger area. The Bess wrapped a gong on a chain three times where the lighter rifles could not do so. They would up the powder charges, increase the speed of the bullets, which would increase the energy of the smaller bores and promptly vaporise the round ball and maxi ball with little effect on the gongs.
Pistol shooters some time ago decided that KE did not explain the effect of pistol bullets so they started using momentum as a formula IE IPSC 175 "power factor".
All momentum states mathematically is say for example, is that if you shoot a round nose minnie at the same speed as a roundball the minnie will shoot further and in correlation retain its velocity better.
Taylor's formulas likely work as a predictor of KO power or what ever, but really have no sound basis in physics. Projectile performance can be compared by KE if you for instance compare a 50 round ball to a 54 (apples to apples). Some started a long discussion because some were getting higher KE's with a 54 over a 58 and therefore stating a 54 is better. Only if the 58 is not loaded to a higher velocity. The variables are the integrity of the bullet which includes design as well as the integrity of the target. 300 magnums perform like they do on deer, where you see a deer run a ways because most of their energy is wasted on the landscape on the other side. Magnum rifles were not designed originally to be a better killer than their standard counterparts (300 mag vs 30 06) as they were to increase the range and hot with the same power at longer ranges.
DP