i am curious about the stock issue. It makes perfect sense to me but I had not thought of it. i do expect a good deal of time at a range but dont want to get beat to $#*!. If you are familiar with the early VA style rifle in comparison to a Jaeger what do you think about the comfort level? Any pros/cons to both? I could go with a Jaeger. I like the style I just worried about accuracy due to the shorter barrel but maybe that is not a problem. Again, insights welcome. i really appreciate your help. I want to make this purchase soon, next week or two, but want to make the right one. Thanks
Except for a relative few, many longrifle buttstocks, especially those of the late 18th and 19th c. are not suitable for calibers over 50-54.
From the photos Chambers Mark Silver VA rifle should be good as is the Marshal rifle. The Chambers line of kits has no "stinkers" from the photos.
The key in a heavy recoiling rifle is to have a comb line close to parallel to the bore.
If you watch my head in the video you will see why.
The best recommendation for a rifle over 54-58 that is going to use flat trajectory loads is to use an English sporting rifle buttstock like the original Purdy pattern shown in the TOW plan for that rifle. OR an Longrifle with similar drop at heel and comb.
Shot off my arm as it must be the 54 Hawken style rifle is 100% more likely to "leave a mark" than the English style rifle is shot from the shoulder "pocket". The rifles require a different shooting stance. Shoot the 16 bore other than "pocketed" and the shooter will be very sorry for days afterwards.
Shooting a rifle that moves a 350+- ball at 1600 is never going to be a lot of fun to shoot off the bench and will require getting used to. They are also more sensitive to how they are held as a slight difference in how the rifle recoils can produce a flier .
While eastern hunters and recreational shooters can use less powder if the rifle will shoot well, I don't like loads under 1600 fps, the trajectory gets too high. I have never shot less than 100 from the English rifle and even then its is hard on steel targets at Rendezvous etc. But its sighted for 140 gr of powder so if I start shooting loads that are too light the ball gets too far from the line of sight past 30-40 yards. With a one ounce ball 140 gr is less than 1/3 ball weight btw.
Forsythe tells us that the primary advantage of the American rifle was its trajectory compared to the typical English rifle. The English, in general, used too fast a twist in the barrel, too little powder and needed a three leaf "express" sight to shoot to 120-150 yards. Forsythe thought that this was ridiculous in a hunting rifle and he was right.
This fromhttp://www.biggameinfo.com/index.aspx?page=%2fbalcalc.ascx
1600 fps zeroed at 50 puts the ball 4.3" low at 100. right at max or slightly over for shooting deer.
This the calculators recommended 111 yard zero at 1600 mv.
This is why I shoot loads that produce higher velocity.
I can shoot at a deer that I think is 75 yards away, misjudge the distance by 50 yards and STILL be on the deer with a center hold.
With the 1200 fps load its a clean miss, or worse (much, much worse) it breaks a front leg somewhere below the brisket.
Greg; your comment that "nice does not always happen" is a profound statement that people really need to heed. Shooting in the field is not shooting on the range. I like to go out and shoot rocks (we have a lot of them) during hikes on public land. Uneven footing is a factor, I once killed an elk standing on tip toe leaning my left hand against a tree. It was a one shot kill with a 54 but as is often the case it was a little off not as nice as I wanted. Probably having the tree on the right side of the rifle moved the impact about 4" at the 80 odd yards I was shooting through a "hole" in the trees up hill at about 30 degrees.
Personally I think the 62 is a great caliber for elk. Far better than a 54.
I really like my 16 bore rifle. However, it is hard on my somewhat damaged neck so its largely retired now.
Dan
