Dutch Schoultz's Shooting System

[oldarcher]

I recently read a post here that spoke very highly of Dutch's shooting system, and it reminded me of the talk of how really good his advice is.....from the 70's. I didn't order the system then, because I thought that "I know it all" and didn't need any other so called expert to tell me how to shoot...Oh well, you live and learn... I wish that I had ordered the system 30 years ago, I sure would have saved a great deal of time.
Dutch didn't reveal anything in his system that I did not prove for myself over time, (except some really good tips that I would never have thought of)
His method has helped me rethink my process of finding the right combo for each barrel that I shoot.
I think that his system sells for about $20.00 and he will mail it on receipt of payment...

If you do one thing this year to help yourself shoot better this should be it! What a bargin!!

You can find more about his system at:
http://blackpowderrifleaccuracy.com/qa.html
Good shooting!!

[LynnC]

Shouldn't this be in the for sale section?

[oldarcher]

I would not have thought so...I am sure not selling this...I just purchased it.  I thought that something this good should be shared with other members who may not be aware of how good a rifle can be made to shoot!
This system is really not new, I saw it advertised in the late 70's or early 80's. It worked then and it sure works now.
Maybe Dutch should post a "for Sale" ad in the classified section?

[SCLoyalist]

I purchased Dutch's info packet years ago, and after reading through it decided that it wasn't rocket science, but it did describe a logical and methodical way of working up a load.    For example, working through the section on patch lube on the range with one of my rifles really impressed on me how group size was very sensitive to the patch lube.   

If the packet hasn't changed since I bought mine, it's about 20 pages or so of common sense which can be applied to finding out how tight a group your rifle can produce. 

 

[Don Getz]

I used the Dutch's methods in my chunk gun but I'm not sure how it would work in a hunting gun.   In the barrel shop we
had water soluable oil, and had no problem in mixing up batches, different combinations to find out which worked best.
Problem with this method is that you end up with a "dry" patch, and it went down the barrel with difficulty, or pounding.
Fortunately, in shooting those chunk gun matches, you have time to clean the bore between shots.  I can't imagine
loading that dry patch into a dirty bore..........Don

[Daryl]

Can't believe anyone would want to use a combination that needed wiping between shots - except maybe in a match rifle where you've all day long to fire 10 shots.  If anyone on our trail had to do that, they'd be shooting by themselves as no one, not the beginners, nor the ladies nor the old hands have to wipe during a full day's shooting, yet their accuracy is supurb- go figure. Perhaps I'm saying paying for asomeone's accuracy 'system" is a waste of money.  We'll all tell you how to get accuracy - for free - and - not have to wipe the bore during your trail shoot, with NO loss in accuracy.

Taylor's .62 Hawken is now shooting at or slightly under 3" at 200yards, almost as good as my .69. That's for the 10th group of 5 or the 1st group of the day - doesn't matter, with no wiping at any time.  If he used even more powder than he is using, that Hawken would be difficult to beat.

SCLoyalist's post is spot-on.

[oldarcher]

I always enjoy reading posts on this and other forums, and I am continually impressed by how many great shots are out there, and how many really knowledgeable folks participate in the forums.
I have never shot a 3" off hand group at 200 yards, even with a centerfire and a scope, in fact I cannot even see the target at 200 yards without glass. Wow! I would be very happy with a 3" off hand group at 100 yards.
Great shooting Daryl...You certainly do not need any help from a shooting system. Keep doing exactly what you are doing!! Maybe some of us who are not so very good can benefit from all the help we can get.
I agree with SCLoyalist, in the fact that there is really nothing new with Dutch's method, it just makes you remember to do some of the things that you may have forgotton, or fail to do regularly. I do one other thing that I think helps, and that is to weigh the powder instead of measuring volume only....I have never been a real good shot, I just try very hard to be, and appreciate all the help I can get. Dutch did help me.
Don, I think that you are correct, a dry patch may not be the answer for everyone...I have changed the formula somewhat from Dutch's instructions, I keep the patch more damp, in a sealed jar. I do wipe after each shot, it just seems to make sense to me to do so.
Good Shooting!!

[Habu]

It always struck me that Dutch's system worked because it forces people into that methodological approach to load development SCLoyalist referred to.  Most folks just don't systematically test the variables when developing a load.  If the approach is not something you're familiar with, Dutch's system could be a very good thing even if only parts are adopted. 

We had a shoot about a month ago (I really should get that written up).  One guy there shot kinda-mediocre scores at 25 and 50 yards, but didn't even want to try at the longer ranges due to accuracy problems.  It wasn't that he is a bad shot, the rifle just wouldn't shoot. 

The rifle was a T/C Renegade, and after five years he was still shooting the starting load the salesman suggested when he purchased the rifle: 80g FFFg/commercial pre-lube .011" patch/.530 round ball.  We took him off to the side and did some quick load development, and he finally did OK out to 100 yards.  One of the guys is going to help him do some more-serious bench testing of loads later this fall. 

If he'd been exposed to Dutch's system (or any other systematic approach to load development) five years ago, he could have avoided a lot of frustration over the years. 

[Daryl]

I always enjoy reading posts on this and other forums, and I am continually impressed by how many great shots are out there, and how many really knowledgeable folks participate in the forums.
I have never shot a 3" off hand group at 200 yards, even with a centerfire and a scope, in fact I cannot even see the target at 200 yards without glass. Wow! I would be very happy with a 3" off hand group at 100 yards.
Great shooting Daryl...You certainly do not need any help from a shooting system. Keep doing exactly what you are doing!! Maybe some of us who are not so very good can benefit from all the help we can get.
I agree with SCLoyalist, in the fact that there is really nothing new with Dutch's method, it just makes you remember to do some of the things that you may have forgotton, or fail to do regularly. I do one other thing that I think helps, and that is to weigh the powder instead of measuring volume only....I have never been a real good shot, I just try very hard to be, and appreciate all the help I can get. Dutch did help me.
Don, I think that you are correct, a dry patch may not be the answer for everyone...I have changed the formula somewhat from Dutch's instructions, I keep the patch more damp, in a sealed jar. I do wipe after each shot, it just seems to make sense to me to do so.
Good Shooting!!

No one said anything about shooting 3" or better groups offhand at 200yards.  I've personally never seen it done, either, but 2" to 3" groups have been shot by us from a rest, with our open sighted ML's - that's something I've never seen a modern rifle do, either - metalics (peep)- yes, open sights, no.

[Daryl]

It always struck me that Dutch's system worked because it forces people into that methodological approach to load development SCLoyalist referred to.  Most folks just don't systematically test the variables when developing a load.  If the approach is not something you're familiar with, Dutch's system could be a very good thing even if only parts are adopted. 

We had a shoot about a month ago (I really should get that written up).  One guy there shot kinda-mediocre scores at 25 and 50 yards, but didn't even want to try at the longer ranges due to accuracy problems.  It wasn't that he is a bad shot, the rifle just wouldn't shoot. 

The rifle was a T/C Renegade, and after five years he was still shooting the starting load the salesman suggested when he purchased the rifle: 80g FFFg/commercial pre-lube .011" patch/.530 round ball.  We took him off to the side and did some quick load development, and he finally did OK out to 100 yards.  One of the guys is going to help him do some more-serious bench testing of loads later this fall. 

If he'd been exposed to Dutch's system (or any other systematic approach to load development) five years ago, he could have avoided a lot of frustration over the years. 

Habu - you might have a point - however with the internet today and sites such as this one with people all too willing to help out, there really is no excuse for using too-loose a patch, or too-little a powder charge or not knowing to start at the bottom and work up in 5 gr. increments. That is, unless accuracy just isn't important & for some people, that's the way it is.  Some people just don't care if they can hit a target past 25 yards.   Unfortunately, they seem all too happy to share their innacuracy with others, ie; using .010" to .012" patches with balls well under bore size - even as much as .010" smaller. With their loose load that requires wiping, they once shot a 1" group off a rest - That group has nothing to do with accuracy as a smoothbore with no rifling and only one sight can do that- my 20 bore does, yet won't put 5 consecutive shots on an 11" X 8" target at 50 yards with any load.

[Habu]

In general, I agree that if a person knew enough to know the rifle could shoot better, and wanted to shoot better, he could find the information.  But the guy was using the load he was told was best, and since he has been quite successful hunting with it, he didn't have any reason to expect better. 

Once he was shown his rifle could do better, then he started getting interested.  After some untested changes in his load, he did as well at 100 yards as he had at 25: not good enough to place, but better than he ever thought he could.  That got his attention--when he saw people breaking clay pigeons at 100 yards he thought he had a bad rifle, when he did it, he knew his rifle could do better. 

Its like the way people's expectations of handgun accuracy changed after metallic silhouette shooting really caught on.  Once they knew it could be done, they wanted to do it. 

[LH]

My results with the DS system were'nt very favorable.  Like some here said,  most of it is just common sense if you're not a beginner.  The patch lube part of it was a complete failure in the two guns I tried it in.  Sure enough I got a "best load"  with each gun using a particular patch lube,  and if I had quit right there,  I'd be completely happy with the system,  but being the hammer-head that I am,  I went out the following day and ran the same sequence again,  and just for good measure I did it again the third time.  Got different "best load"  each time.  If you've got the right patch cloth,  the groups arent going to vary much no matter how or what you use for a lube.  Dutch is bending the statistics by not using a suitable sample size to determine "best load".  IMO,  if you shoot four ten shot groups with each lube,  you'll see that they're all the same.  On the other hand,  if you shoot four five shot groups with the exact same lube,  one of them is always going to be better than the other three.  Significant, but meaningless. 

[Daryl]

In general, I agree that if a person knew enough to know the rifle could shoot better, and wanted to shoot better, he could find the information.  But the guy was using the load he was told was best, and since he has been quite successful hunting with it, he didn't have any reason to expect better.  

Once he was shown his rifle could do better, then he started getting interested.  After some untested changes in his load, he did as well at 100 yards as he had at 25: not good enough to place, but better than he ever thought he could.  That got his attention--when he saw people breaking clay pigeons at 100 yards he thought he had a bad rifle, when he did it, he knew his rifle could do better.  

Its like the way people's expectations of handgun accuracy changed after metallic silhouette shooting really caught on.  Once they knew it could be done, they wanted to do it.  

Exactly -

[zimmerstutzen]

nor the old hands have to wipe during a full day's shooting, yet their accuracy is supurb- go figure.


Accuracy is all relative.  To some shooters, hitting a golf ball at 25 yards is good, to some hitting that golf ball at 100 is good.  I stopped by the slug gun matches at Blue Mountain last fall.  100yd shots were at separate bulls, but if overlapped, some five shot groups could have been covered with a quarter, and still wouldn't have won.

Some rifling is more ammenable to shooting without wiping.  Most is not.  Here in the mid Atlantic, high summer humidity can cause fouling to turn to thick slimy goo and wiping between shots gets the goo out.  On such days, no one could shoot "all day" without wiping or cleaning.  Even flash pans need to be wiped because of the thick greasy/wet coating of fouling will foul the prime powder.

Most shooters wouldn't know if wiping between shots makes a difference, because at offhand woods walks it makes little difference.  But if at 25 yds, it makes a mere 1/8 inch difference on paper, I want that edge.  

I have never seen a large match bench or cross stick competitor win or even place with out wiping between shots.  (At small matches sure, being third out of five competitors doesn't prove much)

Wiping between shots is only one of many things that shooters do to maintain consistency from shot to shot.  It is not the most important, not the least.  I have seen shooters measure powder in such a sloppy way, that from shot to shot it probably varied by at least 5 grains.  I have seen shooters use different patches, mix 440 balls with 445 balls, stand one way and then another.  I have seen them try to hold for 30 seconds and then gasp for air when they finally do jerk the trigger.    Wiping between shots won't mean a thing to such shooters when their consistency is already so far off.  When a shooter is very consistent on everything else, wiping will make a small measurable difference.    

at paper matches, I have  beaten better marksmen who were defeated by their own lack of attention to detail in loading.  

As for groups in modern rifles.  3 inches off a bench is bad.  Harry Pope guaranteed his muzzleloading centerfire barrels could shoot better groups at 200yds.      


    

[Daryl]

We shoot in high, dripping wet humidity at times as well, where the pan is filled with water by the time you bring the gun off your shoulder - yet no one here HAS to wipe - not my brother, our friends, my wife nor my daughter. They all use pure lead balls .005" under bore size and .022" to .023" patches.  That  solves many if not all problems. The bore remains exactly the same, shot to shot - without having to pack cleaning cloth, patches or cleaning solvents, water, or whatever. It is wiped as you load the next shot due to the compression the ball and patch is making in the bottom of EVERY groove. I've rifles with wipe grooves, narrow lands, grooves just a bit wider than the grooves, equal grooves and lands and narrow grooves and wide lands- I shoot the same combinations in all of them and they all give me 1" or better at 50 yards rest shooting and every one of them loads the same with the 60th shot as the first.

When someone says their gun crusts up and needs wiping or the humidiy is too high and needs wiping, I see both as excuses for not shooting a decent ball and patch combination. If the patch is too thin, the fouling will build up, shot to shot. In high humidity, that ruens to mud - in low humidity, that fouling crusts up - both are merely excuses for what I see as a poor combination.

We also shoot in humidity down to 6% - where lots of folks out West say they have to wipe because it's so dry, they can't load due to the dry crusty fouling.  That's just an excuse for shooting a thin combination or not enough lube - usually it's the combination. Merely licking a dry patch doe4s not constitute a spit lubed patch.

I've heard most all of the excuses, over and over again - getting "vomitus" from it - the answer amounts to this - shoot a decent ball and patch combination with a decent lube, spit or whatever as long as it's wet and there are no fouling NOR accuracy problems - ever - no matter what the humidty happens to be.  Shoot that combination with a wide variety of loads, from as starting level load to a maximum-type load and you will find a load that will shoot 1" or better at 50 yards if you have a decent barrel - WITHOUT having to wipe. Even my dang TC did an inch at 50 yards in 1973.  Most of you are shooting custom barrels and have NO Excuse for having to wipe nor shoot an inch or better at 50yards.  If Dutch Shultz's methods teach anything, it's to experiment - do it and stop thinking up excuses.

 
 

[zimmerstutzen]

The thing missing from your response is most telling.

Actually having tested whether it is the same
Chunk and. Bench shooters are the most finicky on earth.
They swab the bore between shots.
I have shot one inch 45 CSL groups at 100yds.
It would happen shooting as you do

Further, it doesn't matter if you use a sledge hammer to dart a tight combination.  Once the ball is swaged into the bore , it is no tighter than a ball darted by hand

Lead simply does not spring back extra hard against the bore.
Once a tight combo seals the bore adding patch thickness or larger lead means absolutely zero

[oldarcher]

That's what is great about forums....Opinions are like noses, everyone has at least one, some of us just show theirs more, and forums like this one provide a great platform for them to do so.
Having shot ML since 1976 at a great number of venues from the West to Indiana and as far South as Florida, I have learned what seems to make sense and what is really just plain BS. The real thought here is...do what works for you. 
Each type of good shooter has developed their "special" procedure to provide the best level of accuracy for their style of shooting.
My original post was simply to encourage those of us here to take advantage of a specified load work up procedure. Dutch's. It really is the best I have seen. It works for Dutch, and it made me re-remember things that I had stopped taking into consideration.
I would NOT say that shooting all day without wiping the bore is unrealistic...If it works for that shooter, then that is how he should shoot. That has defiantly not been my experience.
The positive of that post is that some shooters may try shooting without wiping and actually find out what effect that has.... Patch thickness, bore condition, type of patch lube, ball size, powder weight, load compression, and other factors do make a difference....They all should be done as close to exactly the same as possible to get the best accuracy from your rifle....I want to know that if I miss it is MY fault, not some unknown error that I made loading my rifle.

[Roger Fisher]

Oh well !

[William Worth]

I pick up tidbits here and there.  Some things work all of the time, some things work most of the time and some things just never work...

[Daryl]

I'm not saying that excellent accuracy cannot be obtained with wiping between shots - obviously it can. What I am saying is that it isn't necessary to wipe, to obtain good accuracy - if - using a wet patch with enough thickness to create a seal in the bottom of the grooves.

Old Archer is absolutely correct:

 "The positive of that post is that some shooters may try shooting without wiping and actually find out what effect that has.... Patch thickness, bore condition, type of patch lube, ball size, powder weight, load compression, and other factors do make a difference....They all should be done as close to exactly the same as possible to get the best accuracy from your rifle....I want to know that if I miss it is MY fault, not some unknown error that I made loading my rifle."


I've read by BR shooters of long ago, that consistancy is 50% of a rifle's accuracy - I believe that wholeheartedly. We are talking about loading for actual accuracy, not thumb-starting reinacting-type loading.

[mjm46@bellsouth.net]

I heard about the "Meathod" a long time ago. I've been doing this about 40 years and am basicly a cheapskate. I think I've heard all the things to try and have tried a lot of them, some help some are more trouble than they are worth. my point is for $20 for 20 pages of unknown information, it really strikes me a "snake oil" or the proverbial "Pig in a Poke" sales. Show me what's in the 20 pages and if I find it useful information then I'll buy it so I can have it as a permanent reference material.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Micah you can borrow my copy that I bought about 6 or 7 years ago.  Its pretty much as everyone has described. I definitely don't like his dry patch and wiping mode though. 

Daryl, I don't seem to have trouble seating sloppy wet patched round balls without wiping, but I do find a lot of wet fouling tends to build up at the breech/touch hole on some of my guns after 20-30 shots (humid GA weather?) so I have found it useful to pick the vent after loading and to wipe the bore after 20-30 shots to clean up the breech....the lock pan of course also needs to be mopped regularly as it get very soupy.....never have figured out how a pan brush can work in that wet mess.. rag time with some alcohol even..........

[Daryl]

Dr. Tim - I carry a rag to wipe out the pan when it's wet, as well.  It happens here too, thankfully, not as often here as on the East Coast or in Ontario.  100% humidity, with not a cloud in the sky and 110F in the shade. Nasty, horrible, dispicable place - so glad I left in 1972.

Roger Fisher, always a contender whereever he shoots, does not wipe between shots either, either, unless using his chunk gun with dry teflon patches & oversized balls.  Obviously, wiping would be necessary then - which is about the same routine as the BR guys are using.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

this has nothing to do with the thread, but I just have to say, Roger Fisher is the very epitome of Black Powder shooting.

[Roger Fisher]

this has nothing to do with the thread, but I just have to say, Roger Fisher is the very epitome of Black Powder shooting.

Wot, you been drinkin