Long Range Lethality

[Randy Hedden]

I remember a shoot at a Joliet Muzzleloaders rendezvous.  It was a 100 yard elimination gong shoot.  Everyone shot and those who didn't hit the gong were eliminated.  Those who hit the gong had to back up from the firing line by 10 large steps and shoot again.  Everyone but one guy were shooting rifles. He was shooting a Brown Bess.  As the match progressed the shooters who had hit the gong moved back away from the firing line five times.  We estimated that each move back was about 9-10 yards so after moving back five times the gong was now approximately 145-150 yards down range.  The Bess shooter ended up holding on until there was only him and one rifle shooter.  The rifle shooter finally won the match as the Bess shooter missed at the 145-150 yard range.  The target??. It was a round gong about the size of a 55 gallon barrel top.  @!*% fine shooting with a Bess and everybody always remembers who the Bess shooter was, but few remember the name of the rifle shooter who won the match.

Randy Hedden 

[Daryl]

Of course, compared to the loads used in military muskets in those days, hitting consistently on that drum lid at 100 yards, was beyond most men and all the guns involved.  Seems to me the Brits used a .690 ball and the US were into .640's - for .75's through .80's and .69's through .70's.  Also seems to me, that when the US military issued .65 calibre balls around 1820 for the paper ctgs., their hits doubled on the targets of choice - at 80 to 100 yards - the criteria being how many hits on a turkey (target) at 100 yards out of 5 shots - the number with the larger ball was 2 or 3 hits - seems to me.

Nowadays, guys tightly patch the balls and the accuracy improved. Too, we shoot a lot more than any solider ever did, even in war, I'm certain.

At Helfey, for the muzzleloading silhouette match, we shoot steel 'pins' at 25 yards, 'ducks' at 50 yards, 'pigs' at 75 yards and I think it's 'rams' at 100 - all offhand - rams might be turkeys though.  We have two smoothbore shooters who almost or do 'ace' the course, every year.  There are few and very far between rifle shooters who can beat those two - good thing they shoot in the smoothbore category.
Now, this year - might be different as to scores.   maybe not as is usual.HA!

[northmn]

A hit on a gong the size of a 55 gal drum might miss a man   Still I feel that a lot had to do with the shooting ability of those back then and the fact that the military cartridge was loaded with an undersized ball as Daryl mentioned.  Military cartridges back then had to accomodate fouling buildup and the variations in bore sizes as bores were not machined real close in that era. Also the officer was stating his estimate which can be taken for that.  Well loaded smoothbores are an interesting creature.  One of the issues I feel is that a rifle is a very impressive tool, but that the users that make it impressive are limited.  Just because someone carried a rifle does not mean that they were that good with it.  Long range shooting is its own discipline and hits at 200 yards, even today with scoped sights elude some hunters.  At 100 yards and over I really prefer a peep sight over the open sights on my ML.

DP

[hanshi]

It also possible that the "average" gun owner might have been a little better than the "average" gun owner today.  I use to be the firearms instructor at a police academy and was appalled at how badly some of these cadets were shooting.  The majority were mediocre and good ones were rare.  I would think that when your very survival was at stake you would become a better shot due to the fact that the poorest shots never lived all that long.  Call it "survival of the fittest".  Our survival today is not as dependent upon our marksmanship or hunting ability as it once was.  Notice how the really good shots stand out from the masses?  I don't believe it was always that way.  The rank and file probably held their own quite well except maybe against the truly gifted marksmen. 

Consider too that musket warfare was not geared toward engaging single targets.  It was geared toward a high rate of fire.  It wouldn't surprise me to learn that sentries, guards and ambushers used tight, patched loads for their first shots when individual targets were practical.  Just thinking out loud, really.   

[BrownBear]

I've read a couple of accounts of Simon Kenton head-shooting a turkey at over 300 yards.  On the one hand it confirms that even the great shots sometimes get lucky, while making me wonder if yards haven't grown a lot in a couple of centuries, too.   

I head-shot a sitting jack rabbit at a little over 300 yards with a single shot in front of witnesses, resting my rifle on top of a fencepost to steady it.  My rifle?  A single shot 22 rimfire short.  And by the way.....  The rear sight had been missing for years.  I was all of ten years old, but smart enough to hold over the rabbit a looooooooong ways.

Yuppers.  That BrownBear is one $#*! of a shot!  One time he headshot a jackrabbit at over 300 yards using a 22 short and no rear sight.  Heck, if we'd been at war with jack rabbits at the time, I'm sure my name would be in the history books.   

[northmn]

I still hold that today we are probably better shots.  We can shoot more and cheaper and have a wide variety of ammo like the 22 ammo.  I grew up shooting English Sparrows with a BB gun and remmber my father laughing at the cost of BB's  As to yards growing.  Mark Twain made a comment on the great shots in literature, driving nails at 100 yards.  His comment was that they must have had great eyesight as you usually cannot see a nail at 100 yards. When survival depends on shooting you get up close and dirty and rest your rifle.  I rarely shoot a deer offhand.  Shot several off of X sticks, even with modern guns.  Made the sticks out in the woods and carry a roll of period correct black electricitions tape to make them. 

DP

[Candle Snuffer]

To a degree, I would agree that we are probably better shots today until todays shooter is asked to judge windage and elevation with fixed sights and make the shot.  Then I feel the edge goes to our forefathers.

I believe our forefathers most likely thought out their shots more then we have a tendency to do today, simply because they had to with ball and powder in short supply.

A good example (IMHO) is to take a look at the shooting matches of today and the 20 to 30 minute Relays that are ran in these "Bullseye" matches.  If we're practicing and have a bad group, those of us with adjustable sights will just adjust for windage & elevation until we're on the mark.  

Those of us who shoot fixed sights will adjust our/their hold for windage & elevation through the knowledge gained through reading the wind and our/their surroundings.  They may not hit dead center in the lungs of a deer, but a few inches either way will produce the same results.  They may also have felt that a 3 to 6 inch mark at 25 to 100 yards was just fine to hit anywhere inside that?

To me, this is the biggest difference in shooting then & now.  The knowledge we each carry about our chosen firearm and how much we use it, and how well we read nature and our surroundings before making the shot.  I just think our forefathers were better at that kind of stuff when it came to reading their surroundings, and what the wind was doing.

[northmn]

One difference that I will grant today is that the modern guns are less finicky when it comes to range estimation and windage.  Even my 30-30 with peep sights will give a good solid hit at longer range in more wind with less estimation than a roundball gun.  Even with that I remember passing on a longer shot across a field on a very windy day as I just did not think it was humanely doable.  I will give GG Grandad credit for wisely using his equipment, but most of the old woodsmen I remember talking with that were from the depression era that would look at a box of cartridges as 18 or 20 deer also did not shoot much at longer ranges and put their stands where a fair pistol shot could score.  They may have bragged about a long shot they made, but mostly they shot up close.  To be blunt I do not know if some of their rifles were sighted in that well.

DP

[Dphariss]

Get a copy of Dillins book and look at the photos of some targets shot in 1839. Don't know the range but its not likely to be less than 60 yards is shot in a match.

Dan

[Candle Snuffer]

I do need to get Dillon's book.  Why I never have is beyond me?

Without seeing the photos I can not draw any conclusions.  However, in the old days (as I've read elsewhere over the years) over the log matches were held from 60 yards, and if you did not want to shoot over the log from 60 yards, you could shoot the match from 40 yards offhand.  It may have been in Cline's book (The Muzzle-Loading Rifle - Then and Now) that I had read that in?

This in a way tells me that there must have been a good level of confidence for shooters to take up the 40 yard offhand position to shoot against those who were using a chunk rest to shoot from.

[Dphariss]

Seeing a nail at 100.
First we have to ask the head size of the nail, some things just can't be hit reliably at a given range and then consider the shooters eyesight.
My Dad is 83. Last fall he had cataracts removed since his vision had gone down hill.
After the last one he came to MT for a visit and I had my optometrist  do his followup on the last "fix".
He tested better than 20-20 in both eyes. When I was 16 he was able to read the COPYRIGHT NOTICE on an eye chart when I was having my eyes checked. He does not really like telescopic sights or even peep sights.
So when I hear people talk of shooters not being able to see things I think of Dad...
Like the Doc said, its does not seem fair, he makes LRs too BTW.

Dan

[Dphariss]

I do need to get Dillon's book.  Why I never have is beyond me?

Without seeing the photos I can not draw any conclusions.  However, in the old days (as I've read elsewhere over the years) over the log matches were held from 60 yards, and if you did not want to shoot over the log from 60 yards, you could shoot the match from 40 yards offhand.  It may have been in Cline's book (The Muzzle-Loading Rifle - Then and Now) that I had read that in?

This in a way tells me that there must have been a good level of confidence for shooters to take up the 40 yard offhand position to shoot against those who were using a chunk rest to shoot from.

Like much of the writing of the time they have a different idea of how old the rifles are. Lack of research I suppose.
But it has interesting info in it just the same.

I would submit that a lot of the barrels used in historic times were as good or better than stuff often used in MLs today so there is no reason to think that accurate shooting was impossible.

Dan

[northmn]

As to seeing distant objects, my arms are now too short to read and I have to use reading glasses.  At BP shoots, I used to be able to often see hits at 50 that others needed a glass to see.  Should one take shooting skill, it likely follows the normal curve that is used to describe about any talent.  67% of the population fall into kind of an average area and about 17% are better than average (another 17% or if you are doing the math 16 1/2% for each, are absolutely poor).  Some of that is due to interest and testing, etc., but some is a natural talent just like some people without any training can draw a picture that looks like something.  I have known some "gun nuts" that really were not that good of shooters and  some casual shooters that were very good.  My wife was a natural and used to win matches in the women's division with regularity.  At one match she declined the individual trophies and took the aggregate trophy.  Requested that other ladies be given the individual trophies (25 yard, 50 yard etc.)  She had cleaned house on all of them. I even built her a flintlock to kind of even the field but she still won.  She really Had little interst in shooting. I also put up with some comments about her shooting.

DP