AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: smylee grouch on October 10, 2018, 06:38:54 AM
-
I have been coming to this site now for several years and the topic of good shooting and loading technique has been hashed over many times. One problem I see is that what is good shooting to some is not even close to others. I myself want my guns to shoot groups as good as the gun can produce but others are satisfied with min. of deer,good enough, or adequate for the job. Maybe we should all define " what is accurate " to get an idea as to what other people think.
-
Jed Clampett could shoot flies off the front gate,but I don't recall he give the yardage.
-
Accurate is achieving one’s objective when shooting. “Minute of deer” seems a mocking phrase but apparently means one can deliver a fatal shot at deer one considers in range under local conditions. “Minute of squirrel” might mean one is able to routinely make a head shot on a squirrel at ranges up to possibly 40 yards in the woods. A chunk gun or bench rest shooter may want better than minute of angle accuracy from their rifle, so with all the human and environmental variables, hitting the x ring would not be accidental. It’s all about the goal and being able to achieve it.
-
Well put Rich, I agree with you. Min. of deer was not meant to be a mocking phrase but to show the different accuracy requirements of all the different shooters which you did in your response. Thank you for a better way of saying it than I did. :)
-
I think if you are talking about accuracy, one needs to look at what has been done in the past. That is, look at the records. Look at the targets that those records were shot with. Also consideration must be given to weather you are talking about offhand shooting or shooting of a rest. You are comparing the potential of your rifle to what has already been accomplished. This would apply to MuzzleLoaders, Modern rifles , Crossbows etc. What is 25 yard offhand accuracy for example.
Since we are talking about muzzleloaders here, lets look at the NMLRA's 50 yard 6 bull target. That target is shot at 25 yards with an 8 ring black. The 8 ring measures 2.89 inches across, the 9 ring measures 1.89 inches across, the ten ring measures .89 inches across, and the x measures .39 inches across. The flintlock record score set at the spring shoot at Friendship on that target is 50 with one x. Three different people have shot that score since 1973. So you may conclude that at 25 yards . Offhand accuracy would be keeping 5 shots in a .89 circle at 25 yards.
For myself any time I shoot a 46 or better on that target I am a happy camper.
So obviously if you are shooting off a rest at 25 yards, the rifles potential accuracy should be much better than that.
There are no rest matches shot at 25 yards at NMLRA's shoots except for sub Juniors.
You can establish a rifles potential accuracy by shooting off a rest at 50 yards. But you need to know what it is you are striving for.
-
I'm still the new guy on this forum, but I think of accuracy as a trait inherent to the rifle... meaning, how consistently can the rifle put a round ball into the same circle, given all other factors are consistent. Some rifles can be locked to a concrete bench with a mechanical trigger activation and still throw a wide pattern, whereas others would put lead balls through a ragged hole out to 50 yards or so.
The human factor (loading consistency and procedure, steadiness of hand, sight alignment and trigger control, eyesight, etc) is a whole different issue. Then there's external factors such as wind, lighting and even mirage effect.
My concern is that I will rarely find out just how accurate my rifles are because of the human factors.
-
I can see this turning into a Long thread. :-)
My idea is hitting what you're aiming at.
-
I mostly shoot targets now. The rifles I shoot regularly, any rifle, or handgun, must be able to hold the 10-ring off the bench, X-ring accuracy would be preferred. The actual group size will be different for each discipline. If it can not shoot to that degree of accuracy there no point in shooting it in competition. You'd never know if the miss was due to you or the rifle.
-
I don't shoot offhand any longer but am having a good time with the table matches. Table matches are shot at 30 yards from a rest, not a bench rest but a 3 legged table with a pyramid of 2X4's on top. I thought I was doing well in the Fall at Friendship with a .724 string and a group a hair wider than a nickle until one of the fellows shot a .49? string with a group the size of a dime. These were 3 shot groups and strings for the record. I don't feel that is to bad for 3/4 century old eyes but can still be improved.
Mark
-
Accuracy is unto the beholder. Many people have different ideas of what acceptable accuracy is and that is the jist of it all. There are those who strive to
always be in the winner's circle and those whom we shoot with to whom winning has no value, however, they still take pride in hitting the gongs on the trail.
I for one, have heard the phrase "Minute of Deer" or "Minute of Moose" too many times & oft times, from people who I feel who lack the responsibility requisite
of an ethical hunter.
-
Rich, Daryl, I agree. An individual's accuracy needs are simply what they need or desire. A deer hunter doesn't need 1" at 100 yards but maybe a competitor does. I'm satisfied with lesser accuracy because of eye problems.
IMHO the gun and the shooter are not separate issues but rather a combined "shooting system". A tack driving rifle is splendid for a superior shooter but the so-so shooter won't ever know it drives tacks. The mechanical accuracy of the rifle would be lost on that him. And a so-so rifle would be a disappointment to the champion level shooter but would probably satisfy many of the less skilled.
-
As Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder,
Accuracy is in the Eye of the Judges scoring your Target. ;D
or in your ability to bring home the nut cutters and sech.
-
Well I got to agree with Mike Brooks. I admit I am not a target shooter. It bores me to know end.
I only use paper to sight in. But I love shooting poker chips at different yardages. Got to see the target move or break I guess. Figure if I can hit them I won't wound the animal I'm hunting.
Good that everyone has different goals when shooting. Oldtravler
-
I too shoot in NMLRA offhand flint. I'm 63 and and struggle with the eyes at times. If I can keep every shot in the black I am more than satisfied because I know I'm wobbling even as the cock is scraping the frizzen. In the past year or so I've sold about all of my Muzzleloading rifles including custom built ones (nobody to leave them to that is a least bit interested). At this time I'm shooting a Pedersoli Ky. flint rifle I happened by and for some reason it is more accurate than one would expect. It has shallow rifling with a 1/48 twist. I shoot 2f Swiss and a .490 ball and .015 patching lubed with TOW mink oil. Nothing special except the Swiss powder. It will shoot fist size 5 shot groups at 100 yards from a rest with several of the shots almost touching. At 50 yards it is a really good and close group and at 25 a ragged hole. You would think that it wouldn't shoot for s##t with scratches for rifling, but the recovered patches have a nice brown ring without evidence of burn through. Now accuracy shooting it off hand is where my ability comes in to play so I am tickled pink if they are in the black somewhere. Then I know my score relies on whether I zigged when I should have zagged when I yanked the trigger.
The takeaway from all this gibberish I just wrote is that if you're satisfied with the accuracy you're getting then the gun is accurate enough.
Bob
-
Even when shooting at a big target that doesn't require great accuracy from the gun, I shoot better knowing that the gun is accurate. It's a mental thing with me.
Turtle
-
To my simple way of thinking there are two components to this issue - rifle and shooter. First, does the rifle have the ability to deliver the ball to more or less the same spot shot after shot. Secondly, there is error introduced by the ability of the shooter. It also seems to me that the two components can interact. If we assume that a rifle fed a suitable load can deliver a 1 inch dispersion (group) at 100 yds. but the shooter (shooter #1) for miscellaneous reasons can only achieve a 4 inch group with that rifle, then the "apparent" accuracy of the rifle is 4 inches. We might be led to label that rifle as only a "so, so" accurate rifle. If on the other hand, a shooter possessing both mental discipline and physical ability (shooter #2) handed that same rifle might be able to bring forth the inherent capacity of the rifle and its load to produce a 1 inch group. We might then say of that rifle that it is an "accurate" rifle. Now let's assume that a rifle mechanically capable of only delivering a 4 inch group is placed in the hands of our accomplished shooter (#2). The result is going to be close to a 4 inch group and a label of a mediocre accurate rifle. This then leaves me wondering what happens with a mechanically mediocre accurate rifle in the hands of shooter #1. For any one shot is the possible error as much as 8 inches (rifle potential error of 4 inches + shooter error of 4 inches = 8 inches) at our 100 yard target. For my part, I choose the to pursue a rifle that is mechanically capable of the smallest group possible and then hope that the rest of this old carcass doesn't fail too badly when making the shot. I think I better understand why many shooters of the past and present went/go to great lengths to control as many variables as possible (mechanical rests, elaborate benches, scopes, etc.) in pursuit of extracting and understanding all of the potential mechanical "accuracy" in their rifles.
J.B.
-
I think JBJ has a good grasp on the mechanics of accuracy. But I also think the question in the title of this thread is, "What accuracy potential do muzzle loading rifles possess?" And this extends to "What do you consider to be accurate?" The first question has concrete foundation. Witness the accuracy that Hugh Toenjes posts for the barrels he produces, using a machine rest for testing. This is the base line. History of this kind of accuracy abounds in texts featuring the work of shooters and gun makers from the days of muzzleloading rifles.
Now you introduce the human element and the philosophy of striving for the nirvana of accuracy. Many of us are caught in this quest and there is no hope for us. But it is a pleasant pastime and a worthy pursuit. For those who for whatever reason do not seek this goal, and are happy with the simple joy of shooting, that is fine too. Each of these folks has the answer to the second question.
-
I don't know what accuracy is...
My scores on paper are pitiful. I mean sad. I'd be ashamed to post pics of my attempts to shoot a paper target.
But every squirrel I knock down is brained.
Explain that one to me.
Mike
-
Mike, I have a similar experience making great hunting shots, but being less than an average target shooter and have asked the same question. For me- I think it comes down to concentration. When hunting, the world disappears from my mind when I sight on an animal, but when target shooting I get easily distracted and loose focus.
Turtle
-
Jed Clampett could shoot flies off the front gate,but I don't recall he give the yardage.
I heard "old Jed" could take the head off a running chicken at 100 yards with a pistol ::)
Bob Roller
-
Sure admired his daughter, Ellie May!
-
I've had a similar experience and call it "being in the zone". It usually occurs when hunting; but in some target shooting it sometimes happens as well. A good example would be a deer I once shot with a smoothbore flinter. The deer was running and when I shouldered the gun I felt as if the deer was connected to my gun physically. It all happened in no more than a second. I swung ahead of the critter and got the double lung hit I always try for.
-
I've yet to achieve the accuracy I desire. Today my best groups are from a rest of some sort just one of my concessions to age and health. But back in the 70's and 80's I was shooting offhand groups almost just like these, I won a lot.
(https://image.ibb.co/menJ6p/CCI06272017-0002-657x1024.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/krzYqK/CCI03062017-0001-514x800.jpg)
-
Two nice targets Darkhorse, demonstrating the potential of the rifles' accuracy. I too have difficulty holding like that offhand whereas thirty years ago, it was routine. Most of us may have passed our "Best Before" dates.
-
Speak for yourself there, Taylor! Couple years back I had cataracts, and a great surgeon. He corrected my younger-days 20/400 eyes to 20/20 left, 20/15 right. Pistol 25 yard scores went from 265/300 to 298/300.
I have always enjoyed rifle shooting, up to 1,000 yard with a WWII rifle. But it became so very much better with good eyesight. I no longer shoot at 1,000 yards, but I do very well at 400 yards with that same rifle, and with my BP ML, usually am in the black at 100 yards. Thinking about trying the 200 yard range this coming weekend.
Back to the original "what is accurate" - varies per customer, but it is very difficult to shoot well with a rifle or pistol that doesn't shoot well! For me, hitting the target is GREAT!
-
LOL- Taylor and Darkhorse are spot-on. This is an offhand target - 5 shots at 25 yards with a deep groove Bauska barrel. .448" bore, .504" groove to groove.- .028" deep rifling.
.457" ball and .022" denim patch. mathematically the ball is shy of compression in the bottom of the grooves, however with so much lead 'moved' by the lands, the fit was actually tight in the
bottom of the grooves. Patched ball seated into the muzzle and pulled back out showed this. I feel weave marking all the way around the ball is necessary for the best accuracy and clean shooting
where there is no fouling buildup, shot to shot. Thus, loading is easy as there is only one shot's fouling and it is softened by the lube used, whether animal fat or water based.
(https://image.ibb.co/knbzML/7d26611e.jpg) (https://ibb.co/irrYgL)
Taylor has a 5-shot target shot on 1/2 a target that makes this one LARGE! Of course, I had only started working up the load for this barrel.
-
Yep, most of us are well past our "use by" date. I had cataracts removed a couple of years ago. Vision in the left eye is 20/20 but the right is either 20/35 or 20/25, just can't remember. Problem with the right is the focus center on the retina is a blind spot that puts it right on the front sight. So no more offhand 100 yard groups of under 4" for me.
5 offhand shots counting flier.
(https://image.ibb.co/bRbnnm/PICT0510.jpg)
-
Two nice targets Darkhorse, demonstrating the potential of the rifles' accuracy. I too have difficulty holding like that offhand whereas thirty years ago, it was routine. Most of us may have passed our "Best Before" dates.
My biggest problem with shooting offhand now is I can't hold the rifle steady anymore. I have degenerative joint disease in both shoulders and when I try to hold a rifle my shoulder just pops and jumps around, not to mention sapping my strength. So I've learned to shoot with sticks, trees, bags, anything. I used to never shoot off the bench, now I like it a lot. I like striving for tiny groups and testing lubes and patches.
-
Darkhorse,
I tore the tendons out my left shoulder and never did get them fixed, and it doesn't help for off- hand.
Out of interest, here is a pals Percussion musket target, shot at 50 metres off-hand. I think it's his best so far. He lives in UK. (13 shots, 10 best to score)
It's musket bore , or 10 gauge. he shot this with a smaller ball and a decent patch...
(https://image.ibb.co/n6vnRL/untitled-M2.png) (https://ibb.co/davXt0)
It was shot on the big old Concours target, at an International shoot, and believe he took Gold with it, but I added it here to make the point that at short range, a load can be worked up for unrifled arms that will work well, and that shooting Rifled arms too close in does not show them at their best.
Best regards,
Richard.
-
I've had two shoulder surgeries, left & right. Along with that also add "essential tremors".
I don't recall ever taking an offhand shot at a deer. The one time I would have - the deer was less than 25 yards - I dropped to my knee and took the shot. I always kneel, sit or use a tree for a prop; I never just stand there on my hind legs like a human and take a shot.
-
Each to his own. I cannot shoot worth a hoot from one knee!! I can think of only one shooter I know that has no medical issues. He is young like I was once, and never practices. He's untouchable ... an incredible shot.
-
You were once young as well , Taylor?! Same here! LOL.
Hanshi,
Same here, I always take a lean on anything handy. Different with a shotgun though....
-
I learned a long time ago that a rest is always better, if its your knee sitting down or a tree to hold yer gun against. Learn to shoot to your advantage. We are getting older.
-
If I kneel for a shot I'm actually sitting on my right heel with my left elbow on my left knee. Not as solid as sitting but still pretty solid. I put standing offhand shots in the same "risk" category as taking headshots at deer. I've done some excellent offhand shooting in the past; but that was then, this is now. But even back then I refrained from offhand shots on game. Squirrels are an exception. Sometimes, if rarely, one has to take the shot offhand or not take the shot.
-
We are getting older.
Speak for yourself!! And in addition to that.....lemme say....??.......Darn I forgot what I was gonna say. :-\
-
LOL- Taylor and Darkhorse are spot-on. This is an offhand target - 5 shots at 25 yards with a deep groove Bauska barrel. .448" bore, .504" groove to groove.- .028" deep rifling.
.457" ball and .022" denim patch. mathematically the ball is shy of compression in the bottom of the grooves, however with so much lead 'moved' by the lands, the fit was actually tight in the
bottom of the grooves. Patched ball seated into the muzzle and pulled back out showed this. I feel weave marking all the way around the ball is necessary for the best accuracy and clean shooting
where there is no fouling buildup, shot to shot. Thus, loading is easy as there is only one shot's fouling and it is softened by the lube used, whether animal fat or water based.
(https://image.ibb.co/knbzML/7d26611e.jpg) (https://ibb.co/irrYgL)
Taylor has a 5-shot target shot on 1/2 a target that makes this one LARGE! Of course, I had only started working up the load for this barrel.
This is a 10 shot target off my homemade portable bench, shot late in the afternoon. This target made me realize why benchrest shooters have one target for aiming and another one for bullet impact. After about my third shot the aiming point was no longer distinguishable and I was more or less guessing where to aim. While this is a one hole 10 shot group that many would probably be satisfied with it is not at all what I wanted to accomplish. For one thing it is too large a group and badly shaped. When really trying to test a rifle or patch or lube then everything must be taken into consideration or something unlooked for might step in and mess up a good target.
I do plan on shooting more 10 shot groups, I have some new lube I want to try and some new patch material. I have several front sights I made for this gun and I'll stick one of those in so I don't shoot out my aiming point again.
(https://image.ibb.co/mMmpCU/10-shot-target-40-caliber.jpg)
-
Move out to fifty yards. If you make that mess again at fifty, you're getting somewhere. A rifle from a bench at 25 yards should be able to do that without issue.
-
Exactly Taylor. Well put.
Good start , Dave Muzz!
-
"accuracy" will always be in the eye of the beholder and in the mind of the shooter. we are our only competition. whilst lots depends on the gun, the load, the eye, the trigger finger, i ascribe to an era and prefer to handicap myself via the 18th century. it's more fun that way, and always a good excuse or two. ;)
-
Per Taylor's suggestion I moved back to 50 yards. I had some new patching from Eastern Maine shooting supplies I wanted to test and some new Mr. Flintlock lube also.
Best I could tell the rifle put every shot where the sights were. The group is large because of the shooter. In a few days these eyes will be 66 years old and they ain't what they used to be.
At first I had some difficulty with where to hold the front sight. The first few shots I had a little white over the sight, these are the high shots. Later I held with most of the white over the sight, those are the majority of the shots. I just don't see like I used to.
For some reason my rear bag kept moving around no matter what I tried. I just never could get it to lock in like usual. I knew this would have an effect on the group but I hoped the effect would be minimal. I attribute the horizontal spread mostly to the rear bag.
I'm not at all satisfied with today's results. I called most of those bad shots and if I know why the shot went bad then I should be able to correct it. So I will try it again but probably after deer season's over and I start getting ready for turkey season.
The OP asked "What is accurate?", are we asking about the innate ability of a rifle? Or that same rifle in the hands of it's shooter? If somebody with more ability, probably younger eyes also, was shooting this rifle for a group, then I would consider this a very accurate rifle. But with me shooting it the rifle doesn't seem as accurate as I know it is.
Of course, I am very hard to please as I am driven to perfection in every endeavor though seldom, if ever, achieved. Still we are what we are.
(https://image.ibb.co/i62QtL/10-SHOT-50-YARD-657x1024.jpg)
-
good 'nuff shootin ron. sometimes i use a lead sled to take the shooter out of the barrel/sight testing equation.
-
I recommend caution when using a lead sled to evaluate loads in any rifle , but especially in a traditional longrifle with a slender wrist in the stock.
If there’s no movement possible when the rifle goes off, the entire kinetic energy generated will be absorbed by the wrist/buttstock. You might be ok with very mild loads.. I don’t know.
I DO know that men using one of those to test and evaluate heavy dangerous game loads have come away with broken stocks.
-
Ron, that is very nice shooting, whether you're satisfied with it or not. It shows consistency, and thus potential. I'd say both the rifle and the shooter are accurate. I'm surprised that the group is thus, with such a small charge. Interesting.
-
Taylor, This rifle is strange indeed. I have done a lot of shooting testing different powder charges, patches, and lubes to get to know this rifle. It likes what it likes not what I want it to like. I did not expect this from a Rice barrel.
For my 50 yard accuracy load 30 grains is what it wants. At that charge patch thickness doesn't matter so I shoot a .015 patch because it loads easier and I need all the help I can get for these shoulders. It shoots best with a liquid lube like the Original Lehigh Valley or Mr. Flintlock's lube. Going to Mink oil or Bore Butter the POI changes to way high and begins to open the group.
35 grains shoots good but at 40 grains the group opens considerably. 50 grains gives a wide group and at this point I change to .0175 Pillow Ticking, the good dense stuff. But 60 grains tightens it back to most shots touching. This is my turkey load, 60 grains 3f, .0175 ticking, and canola oil for a hunting lube. I've shot this at 100 yards a few times with baseball size groups. I've never even tried any higher charge because 60 grains does what I want.
So basically out of all this testing I've got 2 loads that will shoot the same hole. The 30 grain load for 25 and 50, and the 60 grain which shoots inside a turkey's head at 50.
The lock has tested my patience since the very beginning. The first spring I called in a big Tom and the mainspring broke when I cocked the rifle. I put set triggers on this rifle and never could get a good group so I've polished the lock 3 times. Finally I got serious about finding the problems, it took 8 pounds of pressure to open the frizzen, every shot I felt the lock slam and could see the front sight jump off the target. Now it takes 3 pounds to open the frizzen, and the benefits were obvious immediately.
For a long time this rifle didn't get shot much because it was so inaccurate and aggravating. But now it has become my favorite. I just had to put in the time to get all the bugs worked out. Now I need to work things out at the 100 yard mark. That's a whole new set of shooting and testing.
-
This is accurate enough for me to start with. Being the first rifle I built, I'm pretty proud. I think it's clear the shooter is the issue, not the rifle.
50 grains 2F, .530 ball, and a spit-lubed cut up t-shirt for patching. (Guess who forgot the patches at home...)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hw7hoyyhU8g/W9oHlro3BQI/AAAAAAAAB4I/IGsTp4knk7YluPfYj1O2_PIYRxUcukRqgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_20181031_105850.jpg)
-
Gosh o gee sespe, 530 ball and t-shirt material sounds like a real loose load in any 54 rifle I have ever had. I would bet that your gun could be a real tac driver with a thicker patch and or 535 ball. JMHO
-
Gosh o gee sespe, 530 ball and t-shirt material sounds like a real loose load in any 54 rifle I have ever had. I would bet that your gun could be a real tac driver with a thicker patch and or 535 ball. JMHO
Yep! It was super-easy to load, though. :) And I went halfway through the 34-shot trailwalk before wiping the bore. Groups opened up at 50, and I never shot my 100 yard target in the match.
-
Just curious sespe, what make of barrel is that 54?
-
Sespe, I would increase the powder charge to 55 grains of 2fg, then try 60 grains of 2fg. Along with a good patch, pillow ticking at .0175 has always worked good for me, and your groups should really shrink.
FWIW this new patch material from Eastern Maine shooting supplies turned out to be a good dense weave, just what I was looking for. They have an ebay store also and offer a variety of thickness's at good prices.
I always hated shooting those targets, I seldom got my shots in the right places.
-
Smylee...One problem I see is that what is good shooting to some is not even close to others.
It'll always be that way. Friday I went to my favorite gunstore with a project I only half wanted to flip, and we never made it to gunbroker. Some Gent bought it right then and there at the counter. On the ride home I had a nagging sellers remorse. The good news is that the feller who bought it had some buyers remorse.
Told you that part so I could tell you this. When he brought it back and I gratefully had to eat the sale, my dealer said this gent could not get it to group. Sum Beech but that'll get under yore skin. So I went right over to the range. I noticed he made a mark on the ramrod indicating a larger load. He also left a lot of bore butter around the muzzle. I'm guessing he thought he was getting more velocity but had a bad ball/patch combo and could not equal the velocity I got with a lighter load or different powder or different ball patch com,bo.
Anyhoo, I am glad he brought it back, but from now on whenever I flip a piece I will put a ball and patch in the patchbox along with a freebie measure.
This is a great post because Daryl, Hanshi, Dark Horse and all the others consistently give good advice.
I'll remain a gong dinger on a trail walk, tho.
Don't shoot yore eye out, kid
Capgun
-
Being 'accurate' is having your projectiles go where you want them to go!!
-
True, Sharpsman, but without good precision, there can be no accuracy, however you define it.
-
I don't think the op intended his thread to be a question as in definition of the word, "Accurate". I interpret the question to mean, and it is entirely vague, what do you consider to be accurate, and how is it achieved?
-
I don't think the op intended his thread to be a question as in definition of the word, "Accurate". I interpret the question to mean, and it is entirely vague, what do you consider to be accurate, and how is it achieved?
How is it achieved? With the proper basics and self discipline anyone can be a better shot. But sometimes the shooter is better than the rifle, so bringing that rifle around to one's definition of accuracy requires different techniques. To simplify the question we should strive to build or alter a rifle so that it shoots into one hole at the chosen distance. Then it's up to the shooter to take advantage of that rifle.
I think the question requires a new post, actually 2 new posts, one dealing with the rifle, the other with the shooter. Personally I would really like to see and hear how other people accomplish this.
-
I've always achieved "accuracy" by handing my rifle over to someone else who can still shoot! :-\
-
Just curious sespe, what make of barrel is that 54?
This is the Kibler kit, he uses Rice barrels.
My goal was to have a shooting rifle by this fall shoot. I accomplished that. I used a 50-grain measure because that's what I had from my old rifle. Now that goal one is done, goal two is to find the right load combination. That's a fun goal to have...
-
I agree sespe, more shooting will also help you get a better feel for your gun. ;D :)
-
I've always achieved "accuracy" by handing my rifle over to someone else who can still shoot! :-\
This one should stop this thread. Truth and humor combined. ;D
Bob Roller
-
Just curious sespe, what make of barrel is that 54?
This is the Kibler kit, he uses Rice barrels.
My goal was to have a shooting rifle by this fall shoot. I accomplished that. I used a 50-grain measure because that's what I had from my old rifle. Now that goal one is done, goal two is to find the right load combination. That's a fun goal to have...
Jo-anne's has some 11 oz. denim, likely 10 and 12 as well. I really like 10oz for the .36 & .50, my late .40 and .45, along with the 20 bore and both 12 and 14oz. denims work well in my .69.
10oz. I measure at .0220 to .0225" depending on which dial calipers I use, squeezed hard between fore-finger and thumb on the tines.
I suspect your 50 and 100yard accuracy will improve a great deal with these patches as well as 85gr. to 100gr. 2F. I know others will stay with 3F, but - 2f produces lower pressure at any velocity & thus will be found less critical of patch material and thickness due to lower pressure. The higher the pressure, the more stress upon the patching of choice.
If your crown looks like this, starting the patched ball and loading in general will be much easier, with reduced damage to the ball, indeed, ZERO damage with cupped starter and rod tip.
Dave Crysalli's work with his crowning tool pictured over in the building forum:
(https://image.ibb.co/iFGSDL/Dave-Crysalli-English-Rifle-11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fJoJL0)
D. Taylor Sapergia's work:
(https://preview.ibb.co/iOV17f/100-6518-zpsoyoluoi4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nj73L0)
My Feeble Attempt at crowning:
(https://preview.ibb.co/gXnnf0/Crowns45and58001-zps2a7b2e16.jpg) (https://ibb.co/b8hL00)
(https://preview.ibb.co/cu9NDL/PB241925.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bW0UtL)
-
Daryl Whats that white stuff under a nicely engraved nose cap and has that cap been shortened?
-
Little Joe- this is that rifle now.
I had just re-bed the .45 longrifle and the "white stuff" is platocene from the dam I put to stop the bedding compound from running out.
This is that rifle now - Taylor "fixed" it's warpy, bendy-stock bedding problems.
(https://preview.ibb.co/km2Y7f/100-4713-zpsa9c3c86d.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dx5WtL)
-
I've always achieved "accuracy" by handing my rifle over to someone else who can still shoot! :-\
Thanks Hanshi, ;D
That's the best one liner I've heard in a long time!
-
I can see this turning into a Long thread. :-)
My idea is hitting what you're aiming at.
My prophesy appears to be coming true Guys! LOL!!
-
Richard, I think accuracy: the ability to consistently hit a mark, is something we are all interested in doing. And it doesn't surprise me that so many have added their thoughts to the thread. What amazes me is how so many insist on handicapping this goal with loading technique which only points to failure.
-
Richard, I think accuracy: the ability to consistently hit a mark, is something we are all interested in doing. And it doesn't surprise me that so many have added their thoughts to the thread. What amazes me is how so many insist on handicapping this goal with loading technique which only points to failure.
true, but no need to be amazed as it's intentional on the part of some of us who attempt to be handicapped at times by the manner that 18th century man loaded his firearm, and for very specific reasons that were far more apparent in that century than 'tis current. it's all good as long as you know what yer doing and why. ;)
-
Little Joe- this is that rifle now.
I had just re-bed the .45 longrifle and the "white stuff" is platocene from the dam I put to stop the bedding compound from running out.
This is that rifle now - Taylor "fixed" it's warpy, bendy-stock bedding problems.
(https://preview.ibb.co/km2Y7f/100-4713-zpsa9c3c86d.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dx5WtL)
I would like to hear how Taylor "fixed" the warpy, bendy stock. I had one that warped and tried to twist in a half circle at the muzzle. Mine came out good in the end but I'm having at difficult remembering all I did to it. I think I got some of the twist out by soaking the forend and pinning it into place.
-
He turned it into a 1/2 stock.
-
That I didn't do. I do remember after I'd got most of the twist out, and pinned the barrel it was making stock contact full length. Then one day I noticed the wood had warped away from the barrel in several places. I put a little Accra Gel down the stock where it was no longer touching and a touch at the breech then set the barrel straight down, pinned it and screwed in the tang bolt. Now when I remove the barrel I never notice any warp so I guess I got most of it out.