AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: sonny on July 26, 2008, 04:07:04 AM
-
hello all,just started messing around with a new 54 cal 44"getz smoothie an was wondering,how much accuracy can i expect before i drive my self nuts trying to get results for match shooting/hunting.I went out to the range one time an managed three different combination with three different ball sizes/three different patch thickness/three different loads,an a three shot 2" group was the best i could muster upwith them all.Can anybody get a 1" group at 50 yrds with there 54 cal smoothies.It seem's like the barrel likes hotter loads more then low loads for accuracy.85 grains of 3f was best so far.I wondered if anybody out there shoots 90 or 100 gr loads with better results.If anybody can steer me with this i would appreciate it........sonny
-
Its a smoothbore, they always throw fliers that enlarge the group. Expecting 1" groups is unrealistic. It might do one this small now and then but it will not shoot this small on command.
I have a GM 50 smooth rifle barrel that will often do 3 shots pretty small 2-3" at 50 yards but if you shot 5 shots the group will invariably got out to 4" or more.
If smoothbores shot as good as rifles they would never have made rifles.
It does shoot better with a small ball (.480) and a heavy patch than with a thin patch and a 490-495. Likes a lot more powder the the rifled barrel does. At least in the testing I have done so far.
Dan
-
Here's my 2 cents. Smoothbores may be most accurate at a charge range where a rifle can handle a broader range both lighter and heavier. One thread pretty much was unanimous that smaller ball and thicker patching works better. On a rifle I have seen the opposite. Also I think you may need to sort ball a little closer as you do not have the spinning action to make up for irregularities. A rifle places the center of gravity to the center of the ball. I have seen some pretty wrinkled ball shoot well because of that. One may not win bench rest with them but plenty good for offhand practice. Theoretically a perfect ball will shoot as well out of a smoothbore as a rifle. However molds are off round by a small tolerance and air voids form in casting. Weigh a few ball and they do vary. Who knows maybe taking a trick from the BPC and punching a small dimple in a mold so one loads the ball all the same might work better. If it does not that would not surprise me either. Dan is correct about one thing, rifles exist for a reason. Smooth rifles were made and were good for point of deer, moose or even squirrel at whatever range. I believe it was Taylor who used a smooth 10 bore rifle on elephant around WWII due to ammunition shortages and found it plenty accurate. Satisfaction depends a lot on whether you are hunting game at closer ranges or field mice at 100 yards. As to target shooting smoothbores will not match a rifle on bullseyes at longer ranges.
DP
-
Can anybody get a 1" group at 50 yrds with there 54 cal smoothies.
Based on my experience with a GM .54cal Flint barrel, which has rifle sights so I guess its actually called a 'smooth rifle', is that consistently expecting 1" groups at 50yyds is a pretty tall order for a smoothbore.
I think my GM .54cal is outstanding in that it'll basically shoot cloverleafs at 50yds and having used it to fill deer tags, and on doves, crows, and skeet its one of the last barrels I'd ever get rid of.
With Hornady .530's and a .015" patch my 90grn Goex 3F hunting load I'd occasionally get a burned patch.
I tried an Oxyoke wad over powder to protect the patch but the wad caused flyers.
So I switched to a .018" pillow ticking patch so I wouldn't need a wad but it was way too tight with the .530's.
Then I dropped back to Hornady .520's with the .018" P/T and it shoots practially like a rifle to the 50yds I zeroed it with 70/80/90grns Goex 3F...usually most of the shots in the group are touching each other's edges, and very probably a better marksman would tighten up that group some more.
-
I have to agree with the others above. Heavy patch and a smaller ball, and one of the thick waxy lubes. .520 ball over 80 to 90 grains of FFG powder, and a very thick denim patch. To get better data try shooting 5 shot strings, and 4 or 5 of them before you change anything, then change only one component, and try only wiping between groups, as the fouling may help with the patch seal. If your patch is tight enough , there will be minimum fouling. Also though it's a rifle, I've found that FFFG with a lighter charge shoots better in my .54. At .60 grains I get better accuracy, than with 75 to 90 grains. So that's something else you might try. This is the fun part of finding a sweet spot load, otherwise you'd be using one of them in thingy things and using two or three pellets, and plastic shoes with a pistol bullet, and complaining that your accuracy is only 8 inches at 50 yards, but you're getting almost 2800 feet per second out of a bullet designed to travel at 1200 FPS. ;D
Bill
-
The problem with smoothbores is the inevitable flier.
In my experience they ALWAYS occur and usually at the worst possible time.
I once had a Trade Gun that shot REALLY well from the big game standpoint. But it was impossible to actually kill anything with it. I gave up in disgust and traded it to a friend who was not only a very experienced hunter but a !@*%&@ fine shot as well. He thought the same thing I did and went up the hill behind the cabin he lived in and found a bull elk, range under 50 yards. As I recall he shot 4-5 shots at the bull and never touched hair. We still laugh about this thing when it comes up in conversation and this was over 20 years ago.
It was a 24 bore and I shot 530-535 RBs in it.
There have been others but I never hunted with them. I did finish off a deer wounded and left by slob hunters back about 1978 with a Brown Bess Musketoon.
I will not hunt with a long gun that will not shoot at or near 1" at 50. When hunting there there are just too many variables. Some glitch in hold or stance or light on the sights can make a 4" difference in point of impact on the critter at 50 yards. Now if you have a gun that shoots 4-5" at 50 as my smooth 50 cal barrel does with the better loads and you add in a 4" hold or sighting error the ball lands 8"+- from center in worst case. Best case the shooter error cancels out the balls unpredictable flight and the ball hits center.
Its what a shooter friend of mine calls the "law of compensating errors". In shooting 10 shot groups the smooth "rifle" barrel will hold about 4-5" for 5 shots at 55 yards benched. I would bet on this. Yes, it will shoot three into much smaller group sometimes. But one would not want to put a lot of money on its doing so on demand since it simply will not reliably do it. This encompasses something on 50-60 rounds of testing. With 490 balls and up to 90 gr of FFFG it would not reliably hit a squirrel at 25 yards. I have not tested the 480s at 25 though I may if I swap the smooth barrel back in.
I HATE missing. I HATE hitting critters in places I was not intending. Its purely practical to me.
People talk of hunting at 30-40 yards with their smoothbores. I would rather use a rifled pistol. Its lighter to carry.
Dan
-
Dan, your comments are going to set some folks off. Part of the limitations on field accuracy with smoothbores is due to the use of competition guns that have to conform to the silly ass rules concerning no rear sights. They may have been built that way but the users often put a form of rear sight on them. More originals have been found to have rear sights added than didn't. I love smoothbores, and if limited to one gun would have a smoothbore 12 gauge. On the other hand I am building a 12 gauge now that likely will not see a deer. I am not limited to one gun and will use my 54 rifle on deer because I can shoot one farther away and can shoot finer up close. I think smoothbores can add to the challenge in hunting and can be a good choice, but need to be used within closer ranges. People are getting game with them.
DP
-
Agree...the first year I bought my GM .54cal flint barrel I filled all 6 deer tags with it here in NC...as far as I was concerned I was just shooting a .54cal muzzleloader...the GM .54...and the GM .62cal smoothies would be the last barrels I'd get rid of due to their accuracy and versatility...deer, turkeys, crows, squirrels, doves, skeet...you name it
-
Dan, your comments are going to set some folks off. Part of the limitations on field accuracy with smoothbores is due to the use of competition guns that have to conform to the silly ass rules concerning no rear sights. They may have been built that way but the users often put a form of rear sight on them. More originals have been found to have rear sights added than didn't. I love smoothbores, and if limited to one gun would have a smoothbore 12 gauge. On the other hand I am building a 12 gauge now that likely will not see a deer. I am not limited to one gun and will use my 54 rifle on deer because I can shoot one farther away and can shoot finer up close. I think smoothbores can add to the challenge in hunting and can be a good choice, but need to be used within closer ranges. People are getting game with them.
DP
If I ruffle some feathers I apologise before hand. But my experience with the smooth bore has been pretty dismal. I am not a shotgun hunter. I don't care for shooting birds or water fowl though in years past I have shot my share of grouse and pheasants with various pistols from 22 rf to 54 flint (its illegal in MT now). I just never liked shooting stuff with small shot. I have always been a rifleman.
I know about sighted smoothbores and those with no rear sight. I have had both. Many original trade guns have rear sights including a sawed off one, butt and barrel cut no front sight now, at the YNP Museum at Mammoth. I stopped at Helena to look at the "Bridger Hawken" and found a 3/4 +- of the trade guns on display have rear sights. Some upset from the barrel with a chisel some are add ons set into the barrel. The 2 I photographed were done in the latter manner.
I am not limited to one gun either. But IMO we collectively have been fed a lot of BS concerning smoothbores. We are told that rifles were virtually unknown in New England but we find the governor of New York mentioning their military use in the 1680s. That the natives used trade guns of one sort or another and they did. But we have accounts that the Indians were buying every rifle they could get their hands on by the F&I war period.
That the Shawnee and Delaware were rifle armed to some significant extent by the 1740s.
I feel the reason the rifle became so prevalent on the frontier was the use of the rifle by natives. It was self defense.
We are told by their proponents that they are far more useful. But this cannot be demonstrated when using a single ball and small shot has limited uses. There are comments from the 1760s that state that the rifle in Indian hands was "prejudicial" to the British due to the way the natives make war and further pointed out that they require less powder and lead and this is bad for trade. By the 1760s there was a concerted attempt to keep rifles from Indian hands. To the point of considering flogging people who sold their rifles to the natives.
Yes there were a lot of smoothbores. There were significant numbers of smooth rifles made and traded to the Indians as well. Whites used smooth rifles too.
But there were a LOT of rifles.
It is impossible to counter people in the woods armed with rifles when you are armed with a smoothbore. This is especially true if the people with the smoothbores are in a fort and the rifle armed people are taking pot shots at them from 150 yards out in the trees and STAY out there. It comes to us from the 1750s that the natives take a rest and "seldom misseth their mark". How are you going to be able to even look over the wall with people out there with rifles unless you have rifles to counter them? Going to shoot "swan shot" at them at 150 yards?
The smooth bore only out performs the rifle in very narrow criteria. Shooting shot or for linear battle tactics which were mortally stupid even in the 1750s. But it was "how it was done". I strongly suspect that this was part of the reason the Militias were known to run during the revolution, they lacked the "discipline" to stand in place and let people shoot them down.
When I was in the military had not yet abandoned what was then called "on line sweeps". I did not like them...
Yet people will use quotes by Rev War American Generals to point out how useless the rifle is when the General simply wanted muskets so he could line up people European style to get shot and the rifleman either would not do it or were ineffective if they did. Thus they wanted muskets and bayonets since they were too bullheaded to use riflemen where they were most effective. In reality were it not for Morgan's Riflemen at the Saratoga battles (especially) and rifle armed troops at other battles who performed critical roles, sometimes small, sometimes significant we might have lost the entire war. It is very doubtful the George Rogers Clark could have taken Vincennes had be been armed only with muskets.
I intentionally built a smooth rifle barrel just to test largely because of the things I have read here and elsewhere. I shot it to the best of my ability at 25 and 50 yards with numerous loads 2 ball sizes, 3 patch thicknesses and FFFG and FFG powder over several days and it will not shoot under 4-5" reliably at 50-55 yards. Under the same conditions on the same day a heavy recoiling rifle will shoot 2" with loads that don't shoot so great (testing wads under the patched ball in this case) and 3/4" with better loads.
So I must ask if shooting solid shot why would someone use a smoothbore? In the words of a friend "if you can hit something with a ball from a smoothbore you can hit it with a ball from a rifle better".
Yes they are "cool" and "different" they can be a lot of fun, but if I had to actually feed and protect myself with a ML it would not be a smoothbore. If I were looking at this from a purely economic standpoint I can eat better armed with a rifle than with a smoothbore. While I can get shots under 50 yards at times I am as likely to have one at 100 or 120.
Smooth rifles had advantages, they did not require as much maintenance as a rifle and they were cheaper to make. Someone wanting a fancy rifle who didn't have any intention of actually using or has such poor eyesight he cannot shoot a gun with any certainty past 20-50 yards no matter how its made or sighted is as well served with a smooth rifle, better since its cheaper.
Just for the record since the 1960s I have owned 1 18 bore double percussion and 4 flintlock smooth bores. a Bess Musketoon, a trade gun, a fowler and now I have a 50 caliber rifle with both rifled and smooth barrels fitted. While I hunted with them all I can count the animals killed on one hand. Shooting solid shot I have had far more misses than hits.
I really liked the Bess but it got traded for something else. I really liked the trade gun except it was totally useless for anything but shooting for fun. Try hunting antelope with one, I have done this as well. Near misses don't count. The fowler had "modern ML quality" barrel and I sold it back to where I bought the parts.
We have Indians of the F&I/Rev war telling people to use smoothbores for war. Some people liked rifles, some liked smoothbores.
I have a friend who told me he killed 3 whitetail in the river bottoms with one shot with a 20 both smoothie using buck and ball. I think he slept at the sight over night and the deer came to him. But I have another friend that shot 4-5 shots as a nice buck and never touched a hair... Kinda like my other friend and the elk.
If you hunt in the east and perhaps from a blind or tree stand the smoothie is probably going to work. I grew up in Iowa BTW. But if you hunt were I often do.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FHunting%2FDickintheBigSky.jpg&hash=6720f6b8507f7df2a7a2b3864a0591f16cd729b8)
You might find a rifle more useful.
Dan
-
Indeed - location, location, location.
-
We have country very similar to that in North Minnesota where smooth bores are used quite successfully. Just can't see it for all the trees.
DP
-
We have country very similar to that in North Minnesota where smooth bores are used quite successfully. Just can't see it for all the trees.
DP
Yeah...big wide open areas are unique to look at but typically devoid of game except for the occasional Antelope and I woulnd't be hunting in all that open area...I'd be hunting the brushy ravines down low around all the areas of high ground.
We have large 40-50 acre farm fields all around through the Carolinas but I don't hunt them either...I hunt the thick woodlots and ravines all around them where the deer and turkey funnel &forage through as they move from one location to another...40-50 yard shots are the norm...taylor made for smoothbores.
-
Every discipline has its detractors, usually based on their personal subjective experience. This is usually because of a lack of exposure to what can be done.
If you have a chance to attend an N-SSA regional shoot sometime, do so. Unfortunately, they are not usually open to the public. Most of these guys shoot original CW muskets and rifle muskets. There is a smoothbore class and a crack team can clear a rack of 24 clays at 25 yards or 12 two-litre bottles at 50 yards in less than 3 minutes, loading from the pouch.
I've also seen J.D. and his band of Walnut Rangers clean house, year after year at the Ft. desChartres Woodswalk, using smoothbores. I'm surprised he hasn't joined this thread.
-
Where I hunt, a 50 yd shot would be a long one. The longest range would be across a beaver pond..100 yards tops. The rest is hills, gullies, etc and heavily brushed. so the smoothbore is really not much of a diadvantage. On the contrary, that is precisely why I like to use my .75 smoothy. Tracking can be difficult, and it really puts them down. When on a stand at the edge of a field or pond, I generally use my .50 or .54 rifle.
-
We have country very similar to that in North Minnesota where smooth bores are used quite successfully. Just can't see it for all the trees.
DP
Yeah...big wide open areas are unique to look at but typically devoid of game except for the occasional Antelope and I woulnd't be hunting in all that open area...I'd be hunting the brushy ravines down low around all the areas of high ground.
We have large 40-50 acre farm fields all around through the Carolinas but I don't hunt them either...I hunt the thick woodlots and ravines all around them where the deer and turkey funnel &forage through as they move from one location to another...40-50 yard shots are the norm...taylor made for smoothbores.
Depends on where you live. This section was devoid of deer on this day but had about 40 head of antelope and I killed one but not with ML. For my reasons related to my hunting companion I was carrying a "modern". However, if not for interference from a pair of Coyotes who spooked the goats I might have gotten within 16 bore range.
It is not uncommon to find mule deer 1/2 to 1 mile from the nearest tree on pretty flat ground. You will note the lack of trees or much terrain cover in this photo, note blood trail.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2F16borebloodtrail.jpg&hash=6009fa68c6fc913fcec2918b8a9dab69a2495547)
There were trees within 1/4 mile or a little more and enough "folds" in the land to get me fairly close then the doe walked up close and I shot her. Yeah it was 40-50 yards but I simply could not get this close the deer came to me. I might have gotten a shot had I crawled 50 yards or so.
I was in a creek bottom last fall and crawled a considerable distance on a whitetail, well 40-50 yards or so, its considerable when low crawling, got within rifle range (but not smoothbore) and still never got a shot.
So please refrain from telling me what the hunting conditions are where I live and where you will or will not find game.
Most of my hunting is done where there is little or no cover aside from terrain. Sometimes you can get a scrub pine between the game and yourself. I used to hunt in a brushy/broken BLM section and still do in about 150 acres of it but most of it is over run with people now about every day all year so its not as useful as it used to be. I can hunt the mountains but its more work and 40-50+ mile round trip and the wolves have kinda messed this up.
If the terrain is right its possible to get a shot with a flintlock. I often kill deer in the 40-60 yard ranges. But its not a sure thing. As I stated before I have tried smoothbores years ago. I never managed to kill an unwounded animal with one (except for a Hun with a load of #6s). As I stated at 40 yards a pistol is about as good and I HAVE killed one deer with one of these and made solid lung hits on 2 wounded ones. I could easily have killed this doe with a smoothbore I suppose. But I keep going back to what my rifleman friend said over a cup of tea last year. "If you can hit something with a ball from a smoothbore you can hit it better with a rifle". There is no *logic* to shooting sollid shot from smoothbores unless you are in the British Army prior to about 1850. But there is no logic to hunting with a flintlock period at this time period.
If you choose to, fine I really do not care. I just get a little jaded with people telling me how wonderful/useful/one size fits all they are when in reality they are far more limited when shooting solid shot than a rifle the rifle will kill large game at close range or far and has virtually no disadvantage over the smoothbore. The smoothbore only has an advantage when shooting small shot, in certain archaic military applications or where required by law.
Are they "cool"/historically correct/fun YES. Are they cheaper to shoot, no. Are they more effective on small game, no. Did the smoothbore take over in the east when the large game was mostly killed off, no. The rifle hung on because is more accurate. A small bore rifle, especially, will kill more squirrels and rabbits on less powder and lead than a 20 or 24 bore SB will. I always killed more squirrels than my cousins shooting my 32-40 cal ML and they will 22s and I killed probably well over 90% of the animals I shot at. At SB ranges a good shot can head shoot deer with a 32 rifle.
But when shooting solid shot they are inferior to the rifle in all regards. There is no advantage. But we have people who insist on telling everyone how accurate their SB is.
Thus people new to the sport who read the posts here and on other sites who do not understand that its "relative" and not absolute accuracy come to expect 1" groups at 50 yards. As a result I post the things I do in this regard.
My second reason for the 50 smooth rifle BTW, besides re-enforcing the things I learned nigh on 30 years ago, was Montana's Spring Turkey which requires a SB but no shot size limitation that I know of... But I will likely sell the rifle off to buy parts at some point...
Dan
-
Ah the debate again. Actually I agree very definitely on one thing. If you are shooting one ball, a rifle will do so better under any condition. Part of the attraction to smoothies I think is due to the fact that they are lighter and handier than many of the heavier barreled rifles. In the Great Lakes region where I live, the Ojibwe used smoothbores for many years. But if one considers their use one can see why. First, many, including museum curators claim that most MW Guns that have been found have been loaded with shot. MN is called the land of 10,000 lakes. We actually have a few more depending on the definition of a lake. Mille Lacs, Leech, Winibigosh and Upper and Lower Red Lakes are definitely lakes. Lakes attracted waterfowl which are much better harvested with shot, although some did use nets. Geese were used not only for meat but for goose down as Minnesota gets fairly cold in the winter, 40 below is not uncommon. A shotgun can also take more than one bird at a shot if aligned properly. Heavy shot will within close range, say 25 yards also take deer, especially if one gets them in the back of the head. I have known a couple of duck hunters who had taken a couple of deer with 4's. In the heavy cover we have 25 yards is not uncommon. I took one deer at about 10 feet and have had them come under deer stands. The 24 gauge loaded with round ball could be used on moose and elk which were more common in the early days. As Daryl stated location, location. Were I to have one flintlock, it would be a large bore fowler. The western Natives were traded rifles more than the Eastern because of different needs. However the Metis in Manitoba as well as western Natives were noted for "running" buffalo on horses and liked the NW Gun. They would keep ball in their mouth and charge the rifle, spit in the ball and thump it on the saddle to seat it for fast reloading. They also blew a few barrels that way. Likely lost a few teeth too.
DP
-
The same style of buffalo 'running' was practised in the States. For this, about any style gun is recorded as being used, double barreled shotguns with balls, rifles, smoothbores, and in some areas with military settlements, pistols were popular. Earlier, it was the flint military pistols and flint duelers of French and German made along with the English guns, but after the revolvers were developed, the .44 cal. Colts andother makes become most popular. The .36's is would found, lacked penetration to do the job - of course. Most favoured of all, were the big Dragoons - and the 1847 Walkers - those which didn't expload, that is.
-
Around the Great Lakes or in places like Minnesota its possible to keep yourself fed with a shotgun but in other areas I am not sure small shot was all that popular.
My dad, back in the 30's crawled on a pond full of Canadians in Missouri with a double barrel and an 1897 Win. He whistled to get their heads up then gave them the double and dropping it. picked up the 97 as they came off the water. All the nearby farms had geese to eat. So I know how it works.
But look at history.
Ned Roberts hunting bear in 1880 New England generally at very short range in berry patches. Everyone in his party was using rifles. This would be ideal for a double shotgun I would think. But they used rifles. His Uncle shot one so close he burnt the hair with the muzzle flash.
The frontier of the Revolution was populated with the poor. But they used rifles to a great extent. The natives used rifles more that some would think.
So far as the use of small shot.
According to Hamilton's "Colonial Frontier Guns" pg 133 contracts for suppling ball and shot for Louisiana in 1733 specified:
20000 livres (about 21500 pounds) of balls and a combined 10000 livres of 4 sizes of small shot.
A year later the contract was for 20000 livres of balls 25-28 to the livre, 30000 of 28-32 to the livre and 26000 livre of small shot (bustard, duck, half royal and pigeon sizes). Hamiltion indicates in a table of sizes that 30 to the livre equals .547". So the ball sizes are ball park for 24 to 20 bore trade guns.
So it would appear that they were using solid shot from 50 to 56 caliber about 2 to one over small shot by weight. I would also point out that 20000 pounds of ball will produce more shots than 20000 pounds of small shot unless very little shot is used.
But this volume of small shot is still a LOT of ammunition. A ton of shot at 1 ounce to the load will produce 32000 shots if I figured it right.
Dan
-
The same style of buffalo 'running' was practised in the States. For this, about any style gun is recorded as being used, double barreled shotguns with balls, rifles, smoothbores, and in some areas with military settlements, pistols were popular. Earlier, it was the flint military pistols and flint duelers of French and German made along with the English guns, but after the revolvers were developed, the .44 cal. Colts andother makes become most popular. The .36's is would found, lacked penetration to do the job - of course. Most favoured of all, were the big Dragoons - and the 1847 Walkers - those which didn't expload, that is.
When the range is 5-10 feet the weapons accuracy is not a great factor.
Parkman describes the process and dangers of spitting a ball down the barrel in "The Oregon Trail".
I have often thought that the pair of 65 caliber Hawken pistols that are pictured in various books would have made great buffalo running pistols for anyone who could stand the recoil.
In "Journal of a Trapper" Russell related watching the natives kill something in the realm of 200 buffalo in a short time (one "run") without burning a grain of powder.
Dan
-
I think most will agree that to get "really good" with you fire arm you must use it, handle it alot, carry it alot. Not 4-5 times a year. The comment about missing a bull elk with 4-5 shots, at under 50 yards cannot be blamed on the gun. My opinion is the guy didnt know his gun. I know a smooth rifle generally can punch holes in a paper plate at 50 yards all day long. And ussualy a small paper plate at 50 yards if you are used to your gun. Off a rest for sure.
Darrin
-
I think most will agree that to get "really good" with you fire arm you must use it, handle it alot, carry it alot. Not 4-5 times a year. The comment about missing a bull elk with 4-5 shots, at under 50 yards cannot be blamed on the gun. My opinion is the guy didnt know his gun. I know a smooth rifle generally can punch holes in a paper plate at 50 yards all day long. And ussualy a small paper plate at 50 yards if you are used to your gun. Off a rest for sure.
Darrin
I shot this gun a lot, probably near 100 rounds. I knew where it shot to over 100 yards.
If you knew the man pulling the trigger and the gun you would not blame the shooter. He was an experienced professional elk guide so he was used to being around elk and he shot flint guns a lot and is a national champion shooter. He does not miss often and certainly not several shots in a row. I had the same problem with the thing I missed something like 4 shots total at deer and antelope with it plus at least one flash in the pan. It just would not kill anything with hair.
He felt the same way I initially did. It actually seemed to shoot pretty darned good to 70 yards or more. Plenty good enough to deer sized animals.
I was riding down a trail and spotted a little buck right in the trail. 40 yards maybe. Get off my horse walk a little ahead and shoot him, I thought. I was so sure of the shot I didn't even reload. But no blood. Finally see him looking at me but the gun is not loaded. Ride on down to the trail head and break a couple of rocks the size of my fist and similar distance.
I won't go into details since some the the people are gone now but we decided it was a Polish curse put on it because the original owner had shafted the maker in obtaining it. Good an explaination as any.
Dan
-
Good discussion. Now I don't feel so bad about my 50 yard targets with my 20 ga smoothbore. Keeping them inside 6" is a good goal for me (front bead only). I consider it a 40 yard deer gun, about like a compound bow. I have shot several deer inside that range over the years, but more outside that range. So a rifle would be my first choice for deer anytime except thickest cover.
-
You are right Rich. It's a 40 yard deer gun. But it's also a bird gun, small game getter, etc.
The smoothbore gun has t's place in English cultural history where the rifle was only existing in small numbers.
A rifle is a rifle and shotgun is a shotgun. They are experts at different applications.
I will take a shotgun for most of my applications although I am not prejudiced and "hate'n on de rifle guns". ;D
-
Good discussion. Now I don't feel so bad about my 50 yard targets with my 20 ga smoothbore. Keeping them inside 6" is a good goal for me (front bead only). I consider it a 40 yard deer gun, about like a compound bow. I have shot several deer inside that range over the years, but more outside that range. So a rifle would be my first choice for deer anytime except thickest cover.
Ys, if you can keep them in the black on the 6 inch bull offhand at 50yds you will win - place or show in the matches.... ;D
-
Hi Dan,
Maybe it came out weird sounding ( reading) but I wasn't referring to his ability to shoot expertly but what I was saying was how these this sooooo differant from gun to gun. Sometimes I can pick up and shoot a couple of differant flinters in one session and do ok. Other times if I don't stick with one and only one for, ohh, 50-100 shots I cant figure out what "mood"either one of them are in. Also I know there are a few factors that influence this is whether (weather)or not the the humidity etc. etc. is acting on it that day. Like the tenons under the barrel. Are they slotted and is the bbl being influenced by it. It still all comes down to, in my meager opinion is how well a person knows that one gun.
Have any of you had the experience of the point of impact change as the bbl heats up? Ive had it fairly often until I slotted the tenons more than they had been.
Darrin
-
They did not use "fine shot" neccessarily. Swan shot was a shot size developed for killing swans and was about BB size more or less and tear dropped shapped. It was made by pouring lead into water through a screen at about man height. Some claimed the weight forward design of the teardrops was such that they did not pattern too bad. I played around with BB shot in a 20 gauge fowler and found it to be very versatile in that it really didn't tear up smaller game like squirrels and grouse. While I had not shot a deer with it, at close range it would work with a head shot or up very close even behind the shoulder.
Ned Roberts used double barrel MLS such that they had two shots. As stated each has their purpose. My son claims that Iraqis have found that out in urban warfare from Marines carrying pump shotguns. Considering the game available in my neck of the woods in the early days, a smoothbore would have been more efficient. As to a 40 yard limitation, in some of the brush we have that is no big deal. While I enjoy waiting on fields and taking longer shots if needed, for some of my deer stands 25 yards would be about the extent of the shot. Baiting bear is about the only way they get them and 15 is more like it. Both bear and deer get taken by modern day shooters using NW trade gun recreations.
DP
-
From a historic perspective, real swan shot is ROUND. Drop shot has tails.
I cant count how many deer I have taken with a shotgun. I have taken proably 6 or seven with a rifle and it was a flintlock.
Up until a couple of years ago my county was shotgun only.
-
3/4 of the shot in the 1733 contract was small shot, "duck", "pigeon (Royal) and 1/2 Royal".
I have no idea how large "bustard" shot is but it made up the balance. Swan and buckshot was not listed unless "bustard" falls into this class. I suspect that duck and pigeon must be like 4s or 6s???
Where I live hunting public land a tree stand is useless assuming you have a tree to put it in, marginal every where else. We can't bait bears either. Would make bear hunting WAY easier.
As previously stated a lot of this is location.
I still think that what I call "the cult of the smoothbore" has to use slanted thinking to make them more useful to people on limited income than the rifle. The only place they shine is if shooting flying targets or in situations where large numbers 2-3 can be killed with one shot. Hunting solitary animals like squirrels, unless you shoot nests, or rabbits the shotgun simply costs too much to shoot. On big game the rifle is better since you can take longer shots.
This coupled with historical documentation that the rifle used less ammunition in native hands (1764 comments in this hurting trade) is consistently ignored in the stampede to gush over how wonderful the smoothbore is.
It is a multipurpose gun. But as with many such things it is a *compromise* that really only excels if hunting birds. A larger bore is needed to make use of shot and with a solid ball its not really any better than a 50-54 caliber rifle in some areas its no better than a 45. Thus you pay 1.5 to 3 times in lead alone. If you hunt moose or elk 54 is better, if you hunt only deer a 45 will do to 100 yards or so. I once killed three grouse with a 50 caliber rifle using *20 gr of powder* and a RB. This cost 60 grains of powder and 531 grains of lead. Now if you flock shot them, assuming they bunched for you you could probably duplicate or do a little better with shot gun but to me its a dead heat. If they don't bunch then you could shoot more powder and lead.
My point is this. When "the big game was killed off" why didn't everyone switch to shotguns?? If they are so much better for small game why did the small more "squirrel rifle" evolve??
It came about because if the hunter can shoot worth a @!*% the small rifle especially is FAR cheaper for small game hunting. Its just a fact. I used to shoot rabbits with a 32 (O buck) and 9mm Luger case as a powder measure, 12-15 grains as I recall. Rabbits hiding in bushes didn't have a chance. This gave me about 140 shots per pound of lead and 466 charges from a pound of powder. It will kill larger animals, the size of a fox to about 150 yards with 30-35 grains of powder. Or deer a ranges at least as far as a smoothbore can be used. Even shooting squirrels with a 50-54 is cheaper than with the typical 58-62 trade gun.
Dan
-
Darn Dan,
I thought you were pro-rifle but you seem to be more anti-smoothbore. Ha Ha ;D
I love fowling guns but I am not going to say it's as good as a rifle for rifle type applications. On the other hand, I am also not going to hunt quail with a rifle. :D
-
Darn Dan,
I thought you were pro-rifle but you seem to be more anti-smoothbore. Ha Ha ;D
I love fowling guns but I am not going to say it's as good as a rifle for rifle type applications. On the other hand, I am also not going to hunt quail with a rifle. :D
I know what you are saying. I have hunted and trapped my entire life. But I seldom hunt just for the fun of it. I have no interest at all in shooting waterfowl for example. I think I have only shot at 1-2 in my entire life. I did kill a Wood Duck with my perc double back about 1967 or so. Only one I remember shooting at.
My idea of hunting a duck or goose (I hate eating either one BTW) would be to crawl up on a gravel bar full of them and head shoot one with my pistol or rifle. But since I don't eat them I just like looking at them.
I was disappointed to note that its now (heck maybe its always been?)illegal to shoot game birds with a rifle or pistol in MT. I have had a supper or two when away from camp by shooting a grouse with my pistol, flintlock or otherwise. While I have killed 20 or so grouse I suppose I have only killed one with a shotgun, the offending tradegun I have described. The funny part is that it was not the one I had picked and fired on. This bird swerved up and one of his mates swerved down into the shot charge. While I hunted with this thing fairly extensively this was the only thing I killed with it and it was not the one I was aiming for.
I understand people wanting to shoot and hunt with them. I just get a little tweeked with the "more practical" thing comes up. To me they are just the opposite. For *all around use* they cost more to shoot and accomplish little for the extra spent. Unless hunting birds.
Dan
-
was wondering,how much accuracy can i expect
The question was simply about accuracy in a smoothbore...
-
It is interesting to note that when big game became rarer in the east, rifle calibers became small. So folks were using rifles for small game, squirrels, rabbits etc.
In colonial and Federal periods it was easy to make a cheap smoothbore and not so easy to make a cheap rifle, so that is a big reason why trade guns were popular. Smoothbores would also fulfill militia requirements. And if guns were to receive very rough treatment and not last too long (living in canoes, on horseback, etc., used in warfare) then cheap mattered. I don't have the research ability to figure out what it would cost to purchase a smoothbore trade gun and shoot it 1000 times versus a riflegun of 50-54 caliber. But one shot a day could be a lot and 1000 shots could be 3 years or more of use, depending on the situation (I am not talking about professional hunters or soldiers drilling, b ut an average native or frontiersman).
Lewis and Clark decided the rifle was the best option in wide open country and they needed to consider cost in powder and lead (carrying it).
I do love smoothbores for versatility and I do like to shoot flying birds (shoot at them). I shot some deer growing up with slugs as rifles were not allowed. Just had to limit everything to 60, maybe 70 yards, which was not a problem. Would we have had better success with a rifle? Yes, and as soon as they alllowed muzzleloading rifles, we did.
-
Part of how much accuracy you can expect was mentioned as to whether they have sights, as in smooth rifles, and also to some extent the differences in ignition. My Brown Bess was a very reliable weapon, it had a large lock that set off a very impressive shower of sparks and worked well with 2f priming. It was also very slow. Many of the Fowler's had finer locks and faster ignition. Two types of accuracy, the accuracy of the weapon and ability of the shooter. Some weapons were made rather difficult to shoot. The Natives for instance complained that the NW Gun was too straight and originals were found with carved out stocks to compensate. Some exact repos today are also made that way.
In the great lakes area a military unit was developed during the French and Indian war whose techniques are still studied today by special forces. Roger Rangers never used a rifle. Their loads, according to my sources, were buck shot, buck and ball, and ball. They also had swivel guns mounted on the York boats that were loaded with shot to discourage any Natives from coming out in canoes to attack them.
According to one price list I saw a smoothbore would cost about $5.00 and a rifle about $15.00. A factor also to consider is that the rifles were physically heavy weapons. Another is that a rifle is a specialized weapon and best used in skilled hands. We have today, probably better shots than existed in the frontier, as we have the ability to shoot more. I grew up on a BB gun then a 22 before going to a larger rifle. That just was not available back then. Also comparatively speaking, ammunition is much cheaper today so we shoot more. When I shot bullseye competition, I really only shot against about 4-5 other shooters. There might be over 30 registered, but most were not competitive. At 100 yards some had trouble hitting the paper. (No smoothbore would have stood up in that competition, as it would not have had the accuracy) My point is that in many cases it wouldn't matter much to some users if the gun were rifled or not as they just could not shoot that well. If ranges are close most smoothbores were lighter in weight to lug around and worked as well. As an example, one of the proportions I read for a trade rifle was a 50 cal 35 inch 1 3/16 inch barrel. I would definitely want a horse to carry that one with. On a final note many of the shot charges were not all that heavy, some as light as one half ounce, equivalent to a 54 RB. As I mentioned the 410 was real popular for grouse when I was younger for pot shooting them in the head, often out of a car. As to the shot sizes, that likely varied. Most of my references stated that shot was more or less home made. Real fine shot was not popular in the earlier days like today. Hinton claimed that #3 was popular for ducks in the late 1800's.
DP
-
It is interesting to note that when big game became rarer in the east, rifle calibers became small. So folks were using rifles for small game, squirrels, rabbits etc.
In colonial and Federal periods it was easy to make a cheap smoothbore and not so easy to make a cheap rifle, so that is a big reason why trade guns were popular. Smoothbores would also fulfill militia requirements. And if guns were to receive very rough treatment and not last too long (living in canoes, on horseback, etc., used in warfare) then cheap mattered. I don't have the research ability to figure out what it would cost to purchase a smoothbore trade gun and shoot it 1000 times versus a riflegun of 50-54 caliber. But one shot a day could be a lot and 1000 shots could be 3 years or more of use, depending on the situation (I am not talking about professional hunters or soldiers drilling, b ut an average native or frontiersman).
Lewis and Clark decided the rifle was the best option in wide open country and they needed to consider cost in powder and lead (carrying it).
I do love smoothbores for versatility and I do like to shoot flying birds (shoot at them). I shot some deer growing up with slugs as rifles were not allowed. Just had to limit everything to 60, maybe 70 yards, which was not a problem. Would we have had better success with a rifle? Yes, and as soon as they alllowed muzzleloading rifles, we did.
The use of a trade musket as a Militia arm would depend on if they required the musket to use regulation ball sizes or not.
In "British Military Flintlock Rifles" By Bailey pg. 76 we find from a "1757 List of Indian Goods at Rock Creek belonging to the Ohio Company with their prices at first cost in London [indicating their point of origin:]"
"Abt 1 dozen 4 ft square [octagonal; a common mistake] barrl'd Guns very small Bores-best Iron mounted and stocked like Rifhells, a Bullet Mould... 27/6
Abt 1 dozen Rifhells 4 ft barrels, best iron - Bullet mould 41/6."
Rifles seemed to have ran about ₤4-6 though the less popular low end rifles were around ₤2.10.0 into the 1780s and higher end rifles ran as high as 9 or even more. It gives the prices of the rifles the Girty brothers obtained in late 1775 and early 1776 which were apparently of better grade costing ₤6 to 8.1.0.
Since its about rifles there is little on smoothbore pricing though he notes that the most expensive fowling pieces, chiefs guns, were 40/ when the lowest grade rifle was 50/.
For a student of early American firearms chapter 6 alone is worth the price of the book.
Fleeting mentions of brass barreled rifles etc.
I went to http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/currency.html
to figure out the 27/6-41/6 prices. Which seems to be ₤1.7.6 and ₤2.6.
Dan
-
Part of how much accuracy you can expect was mentioned as to whether they have sights, as in smooth rifles, and also to some extent the differences in ignition. My Brown Bess was a very reliable weapon, it had a large lock that set off a very impressive shower of sparks and worked well with 2f priming. It was also very slow. Many of the Fowler's had finer locks and faster ignition. Two types of accuracy, the accuracy of the weapon and ability of the shooter. Some weapons were made rather difficult to shoot. The Natives for instance complained that the NW Gun was too straight and originals were found with carved out stocks to compensate. Some exact repos today are also made that way.
In the great lakes area a military unit was developed during the French and Indian war whose techniques are still studied today by special forces. Roger Rangers never used a rifle. Their loads, according to my sources, were buck shot, buck and ball, and ball. They also had swivel guns mounted on the York boats that were loaded with shot to discourage any Natives from coming out in canoes to attack them.
According to one price list I saw a smoothbore would cost about $5.00 and a rifle about $15.00. A factor also to consider is that the rifles were physically heavy weapons. Another is that a rifle is a specialized weapon and best used in skilled hands. We have today, probably better shots than existed in the frontier, as we have the ability to shoot more. I grew up on a BB gun then a 22 before going to a larger rifle. That just was not available back then. Also comparatively speaking, ammunition is much cheaper today so we shoot more. When I shot bullseye competition, I really only shot against about 4-5 other shooters. There might be over 30 registered, but most were not competitive. At 100 yards some had trouble hitting the paper. (No smoothbore would have stood up in that competition, as it would not have had the accuracy) My point is that in many cases it wouldn't matter much to some users if the gun were rifled or not as they just could not shoot that well. If ranges are close most smoothbores were lighter in weight to lug around and worked as well. As an example, one of the proportions I read for a trade rifle was a 50 cal 35 inch 1 3/16 inch barrel. I would definitely want a horse to carry that one with. On a final note many of the shot charges were not all that heavy, some as light as one half ounce, equivalent to a 54 RB. As I mentioned the 410 was real popular for grouse when I was younger for pot shooting them in the head, often out of a car. As to the shot sizes, that likely varied. Most of my references stated that shot was more or less home made. Real fine shot was not popular in the earlier days like today. Hinton claimed that #3 was popular for ducks in the late 1800's.
DP
From Bailey:
"...However, since few facts have been printed about the early possession of rifles by the indians, this material has been included to indicate how prevalent they were, how familiar the Indians were with their use and their worth,..."
When you speak of Rogers Rangers you are speaking of a unit in the British Military and the wisdom of the time was smoothbore musket though the British military started looking seriously at rifles in the 1740s and apparently there were "issue" rifles with Braddock. Rogers is still studied but not because he used a musket, rather because his tactics are still applicable. Rogers counterpart in the American Revolution was rifle armed for the most part. Morgan for example.
And yes the accuracy of the shooter is a factor.
Dan
-
was wondering,how much accuracy can i expect
The question was simply about accuracy in a smoothbore...
I never really bench rested my big bores like the Bess because they shot about a 1 1/4 ounce ball and hurt due to the cheek piece. Also I tended to sight in rifles or smooth bores offhand as they can shoot differently off a bench than from offhand. If you were good with a smooth bore you could likely win an occasional prize at a novelty type primitive shoot where you score one shot. You would not be able to compete head on with rifles in a bullseye match. For deer I always considered mine about a 50 to 75 yard gun, closer to 50 at most. Obviously if you followed some of the discussion you would notice that for smaller stuff I used shot. A 54 would handle anything between 1/2 ounce and 1 ounce fairly well, depending on range. for a variety of reasons I decided to put a smooth rifle project on hold and went instead with a 12 gauge. Were I to hunt deer with the 12, I would rig a rear sight for it.
Dan you mention Morgans riflemen. I looked up the battle of Saratoga. Did your references state what happened to them when they ran into a unit of British Grenadiers?
DP
-
I would expect to get at least a 4-5" group at 50 yds off a rest with a smoothbore or get a different smoothbore I have had 5 and all have done this well all were different makes, offhand groups will depend on the shooter, as to the mention of "Bustard" I think itwas a medium sized type of Crane if I recall.....lets try and put the tear drop Swan shot myth to rest this shot came from a round mould.
-
I have seen pictures of moulds listed as being for casting Swan Shot. Seems to me Greener's Book has a picture of one as well. Coming from a mould, of course, they are round - but only if the sprue is removed?
-
My memory could be better, but shot towers were found to eliminate the tear drop shape of some of the homemade shot poured through a screen at human height. It was the home made I am referring to. I have also noticed that some of the terminology used by some of the writers in the past may have been a little off too. My interest is how big were the pellets? While I have heard of cast pellets, I have also heard of other methods of making shot including shaving lead and beating it sort of round. Cast pellets would be more consistant, as some of the other methods would have yielded an interesting mixture of sizes. Those that made it through a screen also needed to be pretty steady as it required a little practice to master. Shot sizes like 7 1/2 we use today is fairly recent as making the stuff any other way required too much work for the amount of shot. Imagine casting 350 pellets to get an ounce of shot.
DP
-
Are conical bullets in a smoothbore more accurate? I dont know if I should compare my shotgun (improved cylinder ) to a ML smoothbore but this gun was extremely accurate to the point of hitting coke cans at 100 yards free hand ...and after knocking them over, hitting the bottom part of the can (my younger years of shooting). Perhaps due to faster ignition or modern powder ,but it still was a smoothbore! I much rather shoot ML rifles.
-
"but only if the sprue is removed?'
Yeah, this would be the same with the various buck shot as well, I suspect than any cast shot would have been de-sprued, the Swan shot being tear drop shaped likely comes from the teardrop shape when viewed sideways looks kind of like the body of a Swan and its long neck, there were likley some original home made lead dropplets that looked like that and an erroneous connection was made, if not then buck shot should look like a deer and Piegeon shot should look like a Piegeon and so forth.I have seen mention of Swan shot molds in two or three sources,the tadpole stuff is still being peddled as Swan shot by some but I did hear someone call it Swan drops a while back , now to me that would be something that resembles Swan @#$%/!!.
-
I would imagine spad drops would look very much like goose drops - too long for a smoothie - ;D
The tails would very likely be the sprues left on after casting, as I figured, but could be from being dropped at low altitude. I would think that if this happened, the shot would likely not be even close to being round as it was the long drop that made it round. Fropped formlow altitude would most likely deliver sviers of lead, streaks, etc. nothing remotely round. Just thinking out loud here, after only 2 beer. Man I'm a cheap drunk. gotta blame the morphine. I worked hard today on the yard - torching weeks with the tiger torch & a 20 pound propane bottle - fun, but hot work.
-
My memory could be better, but shot towers were found to eliminate the tear drop shape of some of the homemade shot poured through a screen at human height. It was the home made I am referring to. I have also noticed that some of the terminology used by some of the writers in the past may have been a little off too. My interest is how big were the pellets? While I have heard of cast pellets, I have also heard of other methods of making shot including shaving lead and beating it sort of round. Cast pellets would be more consistant, as some of the other methods would have yielded an interesting mixture of sizes. Those that made it through a screen also needed to be pretty steady as it required a little practice to master. Shot sizes like 7 1/2 we use today is fairly recent as making the stuff any other way required too much work for the amount of shot. Imagine casting 350 pellets to get an ounce of shot.
DP
But the shot tower was not invented until 1769. Prior to this virtually all shot (for our purposes here) was "Rupert shot" that was dropped only about 10" into water and was not completely round since it was still molten when it struck the water. It is not teardrop shaped but has a dimple that makes it more heart shaped in cross section.
According to T.M. Hamilton in "Colonial Frontier Guns" we have cut sheet then tumbled shot to circa 1665, Rupert to 1665 to 1769 and drop shot there after. But there must be a few years of lag time added here as well. Drop shot did not appear in the Americas in 1769 I am sure. Rupert probably hung on for at least a few years. He shows Rupert shot to about .215" and cast shot in larger sizes. The smallest Rupert was about 8-8 1/2 modern shot. This was from Michilimackinac
Rupert shot is found at every 18th century site he has been to according to Hamilton.
I have no idea what "Swan shot" was but Rupert at .215" (between T and F) would have been pretty deadly on any bird. I suspect this is likely the "Bustard" shot??? The buckshot as shown as found at Michilimackinac started at 35 caliber.
Track has this book in stock and its something everyone interested in guns on the Frontier should have.
Dan
-
Swan shot was shot used to kill swans, a very large bird that takes some killing. Its is very likely that is was used to refer to a size of shot, like buckshot is usually over 30 caliber and used to kill deer (bucks). How the shot was made has little to do with the terminology as does size. Which is why when earlier sources referred to swan shot they may have been referring to size. If my memory serves, the home brew shot process was described in Muzzle Blasts. It is not real practical to cast shot out of a mold, even a gang mold, as compared to other methods. Also you have the elimination of the sprue to contend with. I tried making the shot as described and it is tricky but much faster. Another factor is that moat American shooters bought lead and cast their own, whether ball or making shot. The term drop shot was carried over into the 1900's and referred to pure lead shot as compared to todays alloyed shot. Even dropped from a tower, drop shot is not noted for being round. Thats one reason they started adding tin and antimony. I have also heard of the use of beans, corn and other large seeds for small game use in the early days, whether true or not I would question either way.
DP
-
Are conical bullets in a smoothbore more accurate? I dont know if I should compare my shotgun (improved cylinder ) to a ML smoothbore but this gun was extremely accurate to the point of hitting coke cans at 100 yards free hand ...and after knocking them over, hitting the bottom part of the can (my younger years of shooting). Perhaps due to faster ignition or modern powder ,but it still was a smoothbore! I much rather shoot ML rifles.
The typical shotgun slug flies like a dart.
Anytime one speaks of accuracy he must shoot groups on paper. Some shotguns will shoot certain loads with surprising accuracy. But this generally requires rifle sights.
The "dart" idea is a good one. The Abrams tank has a smoothbore gun and shoot "darts".
Dan
-
" Which is why when earlier sources referred to swan shot they may have been referring to size. '
no doubt this was the way shot was described kind of matching the game to the size needed, swan and buck shot were always a cast shot in the past from everything I have seen the home made stuff was likley around in the past but most frontier folks would not likley have dropped a lot of different sizes in the method that makes the tadpoles, early on 1700 there was a variety of shot being sent over by the French. Swan was probably about the smallest molded shot I think it is .23 +/- the main point here is not to confuse whatever the end result of a variety of methods of dropping lead into water with Swan shot.
-
Again you are assuming shot was purchased as is today. Likely was by many. The references I had heard for making shot may have been for the western fur trade or backwoods method. There they bought powder and they bought lead. They did not buy shot. Dpharsis reference to shot being included in trade goods makes me think the natives may have bought shot. Also with the trade gun almost a standard bore they may have wanted precast ball. The finding of a few molds proves that a few people cast shot. It does not make the method universal. .23 caliber shot goes something like 20 to an ounce. It would take a lot of casting and sprue cutting to get many loads.
DP
-
I have seen but can t quickly put my hand on more than one English reference to a "swan shot' mold. It was of course for round shot. There were even molds for small bird shot casting 100 at a time. Keith Neal has a great picture of one in Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790.
Most all historical shot references I have seen detail great lengths to make the shot round by various forms of tumbling, etc.
Even Rupert's (1619-1682) detailing of the shot making process of drip shot contains details of keeping the shot round and avoiding tails. "so long as you observe the right temper of the heat, the lead will constantly drop in to very round shot, without so much as one with a tail in many pounds."
Even then they know the value of round shot and tried to obtain it in every instance. For makeshift shot in a quick non-caring manner, tails are sufficient just as a "get you in" tire and wheel when you have a flat. It can suffice but is not desired from a historic standpoint.
-
Again you are assuming shot was purchased as is today. Likely was by many. The references I had heard for making shot may have been for the western fur trade or backwoods method. There they bought powder and they bought lead. They did not buy shot. Dpharsis reference to shot being included in trade goods makes me think the natives may have bought shot. Also with the trade gun almost a standard bore they may have wanted precast ball. The finding of a few molds proves that a few people cast shot. It does not make the method universal. .23 caliber shot goes something like 20 to an ounce. It would take a lot of casting and sprue cutting to get many loads.
DP
The mass produced cast shot was produced in large gang moulds by shot makers. Prior to shot towers and likely after (unless the tower was very tall or cool air was blown in) this was apparently how larger shot was made. The largest Rupert shot Hamilton lists is about .21" close to swan shot and likely(?) the French "Bustard" shot.
For people not buying shot Hamilton found cast large shot and Rupert shot and little of anything else at the 18th century sites. If it was available as a common trade item anyone could likely get it. Lead bars would have been more practical for rifle balls and buckshot.
Then the homemade shot maker has the problem of sieves which i suspect would have been fairly costly, unless you just wanted to use whatever came from dropping lead from a ladle into a container of water.
From accounts the performance of poorly made shot was such that I can't see people using it except in emergencies.
Someone needs to make some of this stuff and do some testing to see if it patterns well enough to RELIABLY kill small game to 25-30 yards. If it leaves a lot of holes in the pattern that would produce misses then it would be more cost effective to buy shot that gave a better kill ratio than to make stuff that resulted in wastes of powder an lead.
My idea of western fur trade, Montana, Wyoming etc. Had little use for shot in most cases since they were generally far out from places where one would find lots of birds and then they are only around for short periods. I would have to read "The Oregon Trail" again but Parkman's companion shot RBs in his shotgun IIRC. I don't recall any mention of bird hunting in Russell's Journal or other readings but I could have missed it. They mostly lived off dried or fresh meat. Deer, Antelope, Elk and Buff. Russell was near the shores of Yellowstone Lake cutting meat from a bale of dried meat and eating when the Indian attack that left him wounded started.
Now it is possible that someone at a post who wanted to shoot grouse or such with his shotgun and having no shot available might have made some for sport shooting. But I don't recall reading any accounts from the Rocky Mountain fur trade of any significant bird hunting.
The Great Lakes area, likely Minn and parts of Canada that had lots of birds used Rupert shot according to Hamilton.
Dan
-
Back to the original question. Smoothbore accuracy cannot and does not compare well with rifle accuracy. You cannot expect 1" groups at 50 yds, even if it may occasionally occur. My experience with shooting single ball rounds out of a smoothbore is limited, so I defer to those with more experience for statistics; however, holding for 'tight' groups without a rear sight is an art--and some are better at it than others. My pal, a ML gunsmith and former NMLRA competition shooter, made a VA .50 smoothrifle recently and took it to a rifle match without even test firing it first. He entered the match against all rifle shooters--and won it! He had just guessed at a load and had never shot the gun before. Dumb luck? No, he is a very experienced shooter; but I don't know the level of competition he was against. The smoothrifle is a little different beast than the musket or fowler or trade gun, however, typically having a stiffer barrel and rear sights. My .62 smoothbore fusil scatters balls all over a square foot target at 50 yds. But I have not "tuned" the loads or my skills with it yet. In close woods combat it would strike a man, but it ain't no hunting arm [to me]. Something like a smoothbore, stiff, well-sighted barrel on a Hawken rifle should do better than a sightless musket or fusil. But I like to hunt with arms that will group tightly under ideal conditions, so that takes that uncertainty out of the equation--any misses will be MY fault, not the gun. Therefore when I want to hit something I choose a rifle.
-
Mike - all of which is pretty much as stated way back on page 1 of this rather elongated thread. Some smoothies seem to shoot better than others, some are easier to shoot than others. If the bore is true and straight, it will be easier to shoot.
; I've made some impressive groups at 50 yards with a .44 smoothie, and with a 20 bore smoothie. I've seen Taylor put them into 2 1/2" at 50 yards offhand with a 10 bore Bess, and then have difficulty getting 2 out of 5 within 2" of each other. This is the world of smoothbores, as indicated by Dan - inconsistant at best, but can be very rewarding as well.
-
Daryl, just out of curiosity, do the good smoothbore shots weigh and sort the ball very carefully?
DP
-
Daryl, just out of curiosity, do the good smoothbore shots weigh and sort the ball very carefully?
DP
I don't know enough smoothbore shooters to answer that specifically, but Sam Fadala in his Blackpowder guide advised just that as one step in achieving acceptable accuracy.
-
I do for mine also, but was wondering? I think it would be more critical for a smoothbore. I am sure that if Daryl doesn't, the advice of Mr. Fadala will sway him to start.
DP
-
No - I don't weigh my balls. I am careful when casting, although I cast very fast compared to some. Rifle bullets I weigh in batches of randomly sampled lots - say 10 out of 50 to check evenness and they're most always spot-on. I know benchrest shooters weigh round balls and it is a good idea - I can't be bothered.
: As to Sam - he's on a long learning streak, although he does repeat someone else's wisdom at times - none of which is his idea. I just can't get over his recurring anti-gasget ideas.
: LB, Crispy and Hatchet Jack are the best smoothie shooters we've got here - and they are all good but none of them weigh balls I am sure. Hatchet jack just bopught a new measure, so he may weigh a few just to see what they actually weigh when cast in WW compared to pure lead. The scale is purely for weighing powder charges and slugs for his new long range Rolling Block.
: Experience in casting balls and bullets will eliminate or surely reduce the need for weighing. I find the bottom pour works well for me with my method, while others get large variations when using one, even long-term casters. You get a 'feel' for which ones go back into the pot while casting. When I dipped, most every one in a 100 bullet or ball session would be almost perfect when sample weighed. This is with Lyman blocks - Lee moulds on the other hand are very much more prone to picking up particles of lead that 'adjust' the ball's weight. I find with the bottom pour, I can get a perfect sprue puddle on the sprue plate about every time as well as casting with no impurities that also cause light weights. The dipper, for me is prone to picking up dross wich transfers to the balls or bullets. This is especially perplexing at the higher temps I cast.
-
hello all,just started messing around with a new 54 cal 44"getz smoothie an was wondering,how much accuracy can i expect before i drive my self nuts trying to get results for match shooting/hunting.I went out to the range one time an managed three different combination with three different ball sizes/three different patch thickness/three different loads,an a three shot 2" group was the best i could muster upwith them all.Can anybody get a 1" group at 50 yrds with there 54 cal smoothies.It seem's like the barrel likes hotter loads more then low loads for accuracy.85 grains of 3f was best so far.I wondered if anybody out there shoots 90 or 100 gr loads with better results.If anybody can steer me with this i would appreciate it........sonny
Turning back to this young man's initial question:::: Taling offhand now since that is mainly the shots we take with our knuckleballers.... If you can keep 'em in the 6" black bull at 50 yds you will be in the running to win the match!!! (5 shots) :)
-
I do for mine also, but was wondering? I think it would be more critical for a smoothbore. I am sure that if Daryl doesn't, the advice of Mr. Fadala will sway him to start.
DP
In this particular case Sam was claiming to be reporting on tests he personally made with smoothbores. Like others, I find his advice often a mixture of fact and fancy.
-
Daryl has always been impressed with Sam's ideas, that why I thought I would bring it up when I read your reference to him, it was all in fun. Dpharsis keeps mentioning the inevitable flyers, which could be a combination of about anything you can think of. Uneven ball weight being one. While i cannot prove it at this time I think it may affect smaller bores like the 54 more than the bigger ones. (heck of a note when you call a 54 a "small bore".
DP
-
DP - I figured that's where you were headed. You are too level headed a guy to do otherwise. I doubt Dan's fliers were due to ball problems, other than typical smoothbore idiosyncrasies. We cross-mailed each other when he was doing his testing and his results are about typical. Personally, I've not seen smoothbores produce any 2", 50 yard groups nor any of 1" persuasion we hear of occasionally. A person should be able to compete in chunk matches with such a smoothbore, and win. If the shots were reasonably centred on the X, that smoothie would run strings of 2 1/2" to 3". That would win most of the chunk matches in the States and set records as well. The Bevel brothers would probably switch to smoothbores. ::)
edit to spell check - good thing I did- should get into that habit.
-
I have relatively short smoothbore experience compared to many, but never-the-less I have definitely come to the conclusion that a good stout load helps accuracy from a smooth bore...keep them under a good head of steam all the way to the target...mine are the GM smooth rifle barrels with a rear sight but the bores are still smooth and they do extremely well with max or near max powder charges...
-
I have relatively short smoothbore experience compared to many, but never-the-less I have definitely come to the conclusion that a good stout load helps accuracy from a smooth bore...keep them under a good head of steam all the way to the target...mine are the GM smooth rifle barrels with a rear sight but the bores are still smooth and they do extremely well with max or near max powder charges...
What you say is interesting! Here I've been under the impression (probably bass ackwards) That loading them tight and using too heavy a charge will result in barrel whip and fliers. Am I off the mark again? Sometimes I feel like a salmon swimming upstream to get rid of a heavy load ::)
-
Roger,
Just my thoughts on whip or lash in a smoothie, Very little I think. IIRC, lash is obtained from rifling, and the faster the twist, the more the lash. I think Roundballs idea is right on the money. My new smoothie shoots better with a 80gr charge of 2f and a 25 thou patch shooting a .595 pure. Sloppy wet patch,always. ::)
-
LB- your smoothie is a 20 bore designed for RB & shot, and in that respect with a round ball, 80gr. 2F is a moderate charge only. I would guess that a 90 or 120gr. charge would be more in keeping with that bore size when using RB, such as would be used in a rifled bore that size.
: Kipp's 20bore put 5 consecutive shots into just under 3" at 50 yards, but I were using only 85gr. 2F. It seemed to like that load - no rear sight so we didn't try any more.
-
Can't shoot those heavy charges all day. Not for me,shoulders kaput.
-
Sonny.....I think you are disallusioned if you think you can go out and shoot 1" groups with a smoothbore at 50 yards.
Personally, I have never seen one shoot that well. I have been shooting for a long time, and I know there are a lot of
good shooters on this forum, but I am willing to bet that there are more shooters on this forum that can't even do this
with a rifle. There are many good shooters out there that can do this day in a day out, I am just saying that the majority
of shooters can't do it........Don
-
don...........you feel a stout load with smaller ball an thicker sloppy patch is the prefered combo with most smoothie shooters?I have talked with some smoothie shooters an they told me low power loads is the way of it!!!!Would'nt a slow ball dance to the target,an print randomly,compaired to a hot load driving the non spinning ballto target????....sonny :-\
-
A stout load in a ML rifle starts at about 1/2 the ball weight. A 120 grain charge in a 20 bore is close but still a little lighter. 110 in a 54 would be a stout load. I used about 110 in 12 gauges because that was about all I really wanted to shoot and they destroyed gongs. I have no idea what a good load would be in a 45 cal smoothie for instance. Even so, you need enough charge so that you cannot catch the ball with a catcher's mitt for any practical use.
DP
-
sonny,
Every rifle has a pet load and every rifle(at least the ones that I've shot /owned) is a bit different. Same with the Smoothbore. I owned a .62 Tulle tradegun that liked a thin patch, .600 ball and 70gr. of 2fg.Shot like a house on fire! This same load in my Pa Fowler,not enough steam! Shoot 80grs. and up,she does good. So what can I say! Experimenting is the key.Daryls teases me about my squib loads but hey! they work for me! If you are going hunting with your Smoothie,then the shoulder busting ,cheek chopping big humping loads are OK.You only get one shot! I just tone mine down for the range.
I like to watch the real good smoothie shooters. Last year at our Provincial Rondy,a gal from Idaho,Marilyn,I think her name was, shot a Tulle tradegun that put most of the men to shame(more like *#)*^~ them off). I watched her shoot.She loaded in a very consistent way,same same. And her hold was steady as a rock. I asked her what her charge was behind a .600 round ball? A mere 60grs. of 2fg. She almost aced the trailwalk,dropping only two or three targets.
Just don't expect rifle-like accuracy with your smooth gun. Expect a bigger challenge! The best they can do is the best YOU can do. JMHO. ;D
-
BTW,
We host the World Series of Smoothbore shooting at Heffley Creek Rendezvous. If interested, pm or emale me. Aug.23rd thru Sept.1st. If you want to compete with the best in the world,be there.hehehe! Me and Sockeye Sam are swimming upstream with a big load and gonna stir them up!LOL!! You gonna show up Roger Fisherman?!
-
Just for interest sake....my 10 bore Fowler shot very well with only 65 gr FFFg . Then accuracy fell off until over 100. [FFg } Needless to say, I don't wack myself to death shooting paper with my heavy loads. Each gun is different. My .45 cal rifle absolutely loves 25 gr 3 F. Not much use for much else but paper, but so what. I need to go to 65 gr to get back to the same accuracy. On a nice calm day, I just lob them in with the 25 gr charge and smile when the other shooters wonder at the small "pop" my gun makes.
Holding through is the main challenge when shooting the light loads. Barrel time is longer.
Just my 1 1/2 cents.
-
I have to agree with LB - the best smoothbore shooting I've ever seen, happens at Hefley Creek Rendezvous. These guys and gals are good because teh smoothbore is ALL they shoot and they shoot often - must!
: The larger the bore, the heavier the charge is needed, of course. Most smoothbores are too light to shoot many shots of heavy loads, just as LB indicated.
: Although some people acknoledge they get the best results with heavy charges, I believe most smoothbores probably shoot their best with reduced chargs, compared to same calibre rifles. This was true in the late 1700's and early 1800's with the US military muskets. In testing, it is recorded they increased hits at close range by 3 times over the service charge, by reducing the charge to 1/3 normal. Since that testing was prior to 1820, that would put the reduced charge at 55gr. instead of 165gr. Of course, 55gr. probably wouldn't shoot through the horse and kill the ahh, First Nations Person on the far side, as would the normal 165gr. charge. I can't imagine shooting a 1777 (Charleville copy) with that charge - imagine the nerve and tissue damage to the cheek bone?. Those guns were horrible.
-
I think the attraction to smoothbores is the fact that they are so much lighter than rifles. I do not disagree with Dpharsis when he says that with a ball a rifle will do better in about any situation. Lugging the things around to get them there is the problem. I have heard that the standard charge for a Bess with buck and ball was 150 grains. That also would leave some of us crippled. There was also a reason they added the buckshot over the ball.
When you mention that hits increased with lighter loads, that does not necessarily imply the intrinsic precision or grouping ability of the load, it just means that the average trooper could shoot better with it, which is more important anyway. Thats why modern soldiers shoot a 22. I assembled a 62 rifle for a person out of a kit for an individual. It had about a 1/2 inch deep breechplug. Rightly or wrongly I told him not to go too overboard on his loads and keep them somewhere in the neighborhood of under 120 grains or less. He liked to use 70 grains of 2f and took a nice 8 point buck with it. As there was a discussion that showed an insignificant difference between smooth bores and rifles, I suggest that that would work in a smoothbore as well.
DP
-
BTW,
We host the World Series of Smoothbore shooting at Heffley Creek Rendezvous. If interested, pm or emale me. Aug.23rd thru Sept.1st. If you want to compete with the best in the world,be there.hehehe! Me and Sockeye Sam are swimming upstream with a big load and gonna stir them up!LOL!! You gonna show up Roger Fisherman?!
Boy would I ever love to show up - It may as well be on the moon - distance wise. This Sunday our 1 day shoot - 8 minutes from my house Smoothy-rifle paper and silohuettes - chunk Next weekend Fri- SAt and Sunday Whispering Pines abt 2 3/4 hrs from the house - The following Sat and Sunday our State Federation Shoot at SheShequin abt 2 1/2 hrs from the house - Then Labor day weekend. Will (or hope to) shoot 2 different clubs then I better rest up for our club shoot the next Sunday. All this depending on my supply of powder ball and health!
;D Oops way off the subject - Sorry Sonny and all
-
Ever try the trigger pull on a Charlie?Sheesh, ya gotta use your saturday night finger and pull real hard! No wonder they lost the F&I war! The latinous fools!hehehe ;D ;D
-
DP - the tests I was talking about, were done by testers. They fired a standard military gun, I think a model 1795 with full charge on a large piece of paper and drew a circle around the holes. Reducing the charge in 1/2 reduced the circle enclosing all the shots by 1/2, then they went on to suggest the charge be further reduced to 1/3 the service charge for 'normal work'. The 'board' also suggested reducing the main spring to 1/3rd it's original stength as it was way heavier than needed as it 'shocked' the gun off target. Contrary to the English method of pointing, the US troopers were taught to aim each shot.
: Buck and Ball were consumed at a rate of 3 to 1 over single ball ctgs. by the US Military throughout the smoothbore's reign. The buckshot ctg. held 9 for the light and 15 for the heavy load. We don't know the suze of this buckshot, but assume it to be around .30.
; The muskets of the day, up until about 1820, were of bore size from .690" to .701" and they shot .64 cal balls in paper ctgs. THAT's a lot of windage. Around 1820, the ball size was increased to .65" and the number of hits in testing increased to 1 turkey in 4 at 100 yards. Wish we could do that sort of testing today without rasing eyebrows.
-
Those references I saw were about 30 cal for the buckshot. Buck and ball was three to 6 pellets over a round ball which would push the lead charge to over 2 ounces, unless you meant they went up to 15 over the ball? They even had a comment on this load being used in the Civil War. Actually, to me it makes more sense for a lighter charge to be more accurate in a smoothbore with a single ball.
55 grains will still drive a ball of one ounce fast enough so that no one wants to get hit with it at smoothbore ranges. When I read your original comment the 45-70 cavalry or carbine load popped into mind as they had to lighten that load due to recoil.
In my readings on shot towers there was some reference to the fact that the military had trouble getting consistency in ball and used the smaller ball so every load would load. By 1820 the military used tower shot and more consistant.
DP
-
The normal buck-shot ctgs. were 9 to 15 balls. These were merely buck loads, not buck and ball. At some forts, the night gaurd were prone to firing off at night just to wake up the camp commmander, whense orders came down that any shots at night must be able to show evidence in the morning as to the reason for the discharge. Shots during gaurd duty every night ceased immediately. Due to the darkness of bush surrounded forts, many of these along with route camps came to favour a buck charge over a ball or buck and ball, as more howls in the dark issued from the blackness after just such a discharge into the blackness as 'sounds of wolves prowling around".
-
Anyone ever tried buck and ball to see what they do? As stated it would make a rather impressive load but might be h--l on the shoulder.
DP
-
Dave,
I think buck and ball was for close in fighting,not really for performance but for effect. Imagine repelling boarders or blasting away at a charging skirmish line! Yikes!
-
Dave,
I think buck and ball was for close in fighting,not really for performance but for effect. Imagine repelling boarders or blasting away at a charging skirmish line! Yikes!
According to the reading I have done ("Firearms of the American West, 1803 -1865" has this IIRC) the US Army used MOSTLY buck and ball (musket ball and 3 buckshot) for "ball" loads for the SB muskets. With a smoothbore musket everything was close in fighting.
Dan
-
LB - with buck and ball, there was more chance for a wounding shot, than a complete miss at ranges beyond 30 yards or so.
; Taylor and I played with buck and ball loads in our pistols - THAT was a blast! I was using the Flinter .54 with .526" ball and 3 #1 buck with 40gr. 3F and Taylor was using a .595" ball and 3 #1's in his flint English pistol. Shooting silhouettes at 12 to 15 yards was most enlightening.
; The rifled pistol (mine) put the ball in the centre of mass each time, with the balls striking outwards 4" from centre radially in a perfect pattern each time. THIS would be a very good Self Defence load for a muzleloading pistol.(not that a .54 cal ball at 1,000fps isn't)