Long range roundball

[T*O*F]

Let's put this Gen'l Fraser thing to rest along with the ability of shooting at longer distances.  Below are two pages from an actual wholesale trade catalog.  I have some from other companies as well.  Read carefully to enlighten yourselves.  Guns were advertised, sold and priced based on their ability to shoot at specific ranges.  This is consistent with ALL the companies.  There are other little tidbits of info to be gleaned here as well.

You want it in black and white, here it is.  Beat it to death.

[Daryl]

Thanks Dave.

[northmn]

Wish it was dated.  Found the globe and peep sights interesting as well.  According to Hansen some of the Hawkens and other later plains rifles were made fast twist to shoot slugs (Hawken Rifles Their Place in History)  These rifles advertised were rated according to gauge as common for the times but imply round ball use.  They were pecussion as noted by the patent breech.  Target shooting became more popular as the country got more settled and more affluent.  Also the ranges were qualified by the bore diameter which makes sense as a 200/pound ball would weigh about 35 grains and would not carry very far.  Also a 50 bore would be about 45 caliber which is the largest in some models and a 30 bore or about a 55 caliber in others.   

[Candle Snuffer]

I to wish it was dated though I'm willing to go out on a limb and say we're pretty safe in guessing this information most likely dates from the 1850's and / or after that time period, which would nagate General Fraser's era as the word "Revolver" is used in the beginning...  However....

Still, the information is valid as to ball size and range,,, unless when they say; "Every rifle is accompainied with round 'bullet-mould' and wiper," they are referring to a round nosed bullet mould, not a 'round ball' mould?  Now at what point in history folks stopped referring to round balls as round ball and then began to say 'bullet', I don't know?   However the wording of "Patch Box" does lean one towards the idea that these are round ball rifles.  Unless the patch box is a hold over from earlier times?

Globe and peep sights also do lend  the notion of, are we talking 'Rigby' type rifles here for the 150 to 900 yard 'ball' rifles, or again is the word ball now being used in the military term of 'ball' ammunition - which in many cases and even when I was in the Army back in the 70's, we shot ball ammunition which was marked on those .45 ACP cases, and 5.56 cases.

It's a very interesting two pages to be sure, and I do agree that the larger ball will be more accurate, and it is not impossible for it to carry out to 900 yards.  If I remember correctly, a Creedmoor Target is 6 foot tall x 12 foot wide, with a 3 ft. x 3 ft. bull, 800 yards, 900 yards, and 1000 yards.

I can see the possibilities of hitting Creedmoor Targets with a heavy round ball fired from one of these rifles listed...

Good information!

[Dphariss]

Remember that by the time this was printed people in the east especially were shooting elongated projectiles for target work and hunting. The cloth patched picket bullet was the hunting version. By 1860 long heavy bullets patched in paper were being used to ranges well past 300 yards in heavy target rifles.
The peep and globe sights became popular with the picket bullets use.
A 50 bore ball is about .455" 200 to the pound is .28".

The catalog is probably from the 1850s at the earliest. Note "Express Office". I don't know when this came about but it sounds post Civil War too me.
Dan

[Candle Snuffer]

I found this on; Great Western Gun Works

http://www.cornellpubs.com/Templates/GreatWestern-1871.htm

I'm going to do some more searching and see if I can find more?

[Candle Snuffer]

Here is a bit more on Great Western Gun Works;

"An example of the strong prices earned by the Bast estate was reflected in a 19th-century Pennsylvania percussion hunting rifle made by J.H. Johnston, who operated the Great Western Gun Works near Pittsburgh. A gunsmith and businessman, he began producing a catalog of guns, ammo, and accessories in 1871. Long guns bearing his name are not uncommon in the region. The one sold at this auction had damage and repair but still managed $3850, largely because of family history. Three days earlier, a nearly identical Johnston rifle, in good condition and working order, sold on a firearms Internet site for $560."

from;

http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/stories/index.html?id=678

[Candle Snuffer]

Certainly not a complete search, but the two references of an 1871 catalog points me in the direction that the 150 to 900 yard round bullet is not a round ball, but rather a round nosed bullet, or picket bullet as suggested by Dan.

The term ball may indeed be from "minie ball" there-by "round bullet-mould" and again the key word being 'bullet' not 'ball'...  Just my thoughts.

1871 would be a prime time in history for long range shooting;

http://www.lrml.org/

This from the above 'lrml' site.  I hope David doesn't mind me posting this here;

Colonel Chesney’s OBSERVATIONS ON THE PAST AND PRESENT STATE OF FIREARMS AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTS IN WAR OF THE NEW MUSKET published in 1852 quotes THE CEYLON TIMES from early in 1852: "The Comte de Belloy and his friends used on this occasion two French rifles having four grooves taking one whole turn in two metres or 192 inches [This is actually five metres!] in the length of the barrel which is 42 inches. The ball used was of lead 0.672 inch in diameter, 1.158 in height, weighing 730 grains; and with a charge of only nine grains, it penetrated and passed beyond an inch plank at the distance of 900 yards." There is then an illustration of a cannelured Minié bullet with an iron cup. General Paixhans in CONSTITUTION MILITAIRE DE LA FRANCE (Paris 1849) describes experiments with a new rifled carbine requiring only 4½ grains instead of 9 to propel a ball nearly double the weight formerly used. It must be remembered that the term "ball" here does not mean a sphere. Ranges extended to a quoted 1,093 yards when six out of one hundred hits were made. These amazingly small charges are simply explained by realising that in the translation the term Grain has been substituted without recalculation for the French Gramme which weighs 15½ Grains and would produce the French service charges.

[Daryl]

Could be, but conicals bulelts were called 'balls', 'conical balls' and conicals long into the 1880's and 1890's. Some gus were called 'bulleted guns'.  I don't remember any exerps, diaries or re-prints of letter to rifle mfgr's or suppliers that referred to concial projectiles as being bullets.

[Dphariss]

I to wish it was dated though I'm willing to go out on a limb and say we're pretty safe in guessing this information most likely dates from the 1850's and / or after that time period, which would nagate General Fraser's era as the word "Revolver" is used in the beginning...  However....

Still, the information is valid as to ball size and range,,, unless when they say; "Every rifle is accompainied with round 'bullet-mould' and wiper," they are referring to a round nosed bullet mould, not a 'round ball' mould?  Now at what point in history folks stopped referring to round balls as round ball and then began to say 'bullet', I don't know?   However the wording of "Patch Box" does lean one towards the idea that these are round ball rifles.  Unless the patch box is a hold over from earlier times?

Globe and peep sights also do lend  the notion of, are we talking 'Rigby' type rifles here for the 150 to 900 yard 'ball' rifles, or again is the word ball now being used in the military term of 'ball' ammunition - which in many cases and even when I was in the Army back in the 70's, we shot ball ammunition which was marked on those .45 ACP cases, and 5.56 cases.

It's a very interesting two pages to be sure, and I do agree that the larger ball will be more accurate, and it is not impossible for it to carry out to 900 yards.  If I remember correctly, a Creedmoor Target is 6 foot tall x 12 foot wide, with a 3 ft. x 3 ft. bull, 800 yards, 900 yards, and 1000 yards.

I can see the possibilities of hitting Creedmoor Targets with a heavy round ball fired from one of these rifles listed...

Good information!

The round ball never fell from use. The Picket Bullet had its problems in general use and many people simply did not bother with it.
I do not believe that you could shoulder fire a RB large enough to produce accuracy at 1000 yards. A 54 RB could not be made to go that far in testing a friend did back in the 70s. It was possible to hit a 36" target at 500 fairly often once an aiming point was found on the ridge above.
The ML Schuetzen rifles of the 1850s-1890s generally shot a cloth patched picket bullet at 200 yrds. These are always pretty short being about 2 calibers long
The bulleted MLs and breechloaders used for long range shooting from the 1870s on are a different proposition all together.
The ML and BL rifles used for the LR matches generally shot a 45 caliber bullet weighing 550 grains that were long (well over 3 calibers) for their weight and 100-110 grains of powder. The bullets were pretty well optimized for BC at the velocities they were obtaining (about 1350 at the muzzle). They were streamlined. These, in the BL at least, were also harder than the standard bullets. Once subsonic they lost little velocity and had an extreme range in excess of 3200 yards and were still lethal at terminal range producing several inches of penetration in wood at that distance. It was found in Gov't tests that at its  terminal range (3000+-) the 45-70-500 (a blunt RN design) would kill troops in trenches covered by 1" planks. They came in that steeply when fired from the TDs 22" twist.

If you look in Whiskers "Gunsmiths of Landcaster County" (IIRC its out of reach right now) you will find a bullet mould made by one of the Gumpfs (?) with 3 cavities, RB, pointed picket and a slug that was round on each end. If you can find a copy of "Instructions to Young Markmen, The Improved American Rifle" by Chapman it gives some information on the advancements in bullet/rifle design in the 1830s/40s. Its been reprinted, back in the 1970s and I think its complete on the WWW at google books.
Dan

[T*O*F]

In usual form, this thread has gotten hijacked thru poor reading, supposition, assumption, and ignorance.

NOWHERE in the text does it say anything about 1000 yard shooting with bullets.
Common rifles  100-150 yards
Sporting rifles  100-300 yards
Horseback rifles  300 yards
A peep sight is not a tang sight
These are ALL roundball guns available for sale in 1871, at wholesale, to merchants in the business, for sale to the "common man" for his everyday use whether it be hunting, plinking, or sport shooting.  They were available in various grades with optional accessories.  This is no different than today with guns offered by Walmart or K-mart as opposed to better grades offered by establishments catering to a more influential clientele.

The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories.  The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?"  These are not specialized guns.

[northmn]

Mostly the now is influenced by modern writers that used to write about how inefficent the round ball is.  Hal Swigget back in the 1970's wrote that he felt the round ball was not a humane thing to hunt with and bestowed the virtues of elongated bullets like the maxi ball.  Many of the younger folks have been brought up on a steady diet of that propaganda and claims that you need a very powerful rifle to even kill deer.  Heaven forbid anyone reading these magazines would use a lowly 30-30.  One of these desciples called a local sporting goods store wondering if his 200 grain bullets for his 338 Winch. were enough for deer.  I think that the ML's have been compared to modern stuff for so long that the idea that they could be effective beyond close range.  Look at the modern ammo for the modern ML.  They are all bullets and the loads recommended are pretty formidable.  Ballistic tables are calculated, I think some of them may be a little off on retained velocity for RB's.  You can, if you know the range makes hits with about anything at about any range on a very still day.  Try shooting a round ball on a windy day at even 100 yards.  The suppositions would have been more limited had you made your comments concerning the date and type of rifle previously.

DP

[Dphariss]

Mostly the now is influenced by modern writers that used to write about how inefficent the round ball is.  Hal Swigget back in the 1970's wrote that he felt the round ball was not a humane thing to hunt with and bestowed the virtues of elongated bullets like the maxi ball.  Many of the younger folks have been brought up on a steady diet of that propaganda and claims that you need a very powerful rifle to even kill deer.  Heaven forbid anyone reading these magazines would use a lowly 30-30.  One of these desciples called a local sporting goods store wondering if his 200 grain bullets for his 338 Winch. were enough for deer.  I think that the ML's have been compared to modern stuff for so long that the idea that they could be effective beyond close range.  Look at the modern ammo for the modern ML.  They are all bullets and the loads recommended are pretty formidable.  Ballistic tables are calculated, I think some of them may be a little off on retained velocity for RB's.  You can, if you know the range makes hits with about anything at about any range on a very still day.  Try shooting a round ball on a windy day at even 100 yards.  The suppositions would have been more limited had you made your comments concerning the date and type of rifle previously.

DP

Most ballistic programs are not properly set up to do the proper calculations on low velocity bullets.
Shooters are generally overly impressed with energy levels. Its the only way they can judge HV small diameter bullets.
There are other calculations to be made. There is a set of calculators at http://www.beartoothbullets.com/rescources/index.htm
There is  a Thornily Stopping Power calculator. It rates a .662 Rb at 1400 fps (40-50 yard impact velocity) higher than a .375 H&H 300 gr at 2650 (velocity is a guess).
This falls into line with Forsythe stating that the 16 bore is the smallest generally used for dangerous game. But there is a MASSIVE difference in the bullet energy.
The 16 also beats the 375 in the Taylor KO formula.
Do I believe these are 100% accurate? Probably not. But they do show the 16 IS a pretty powerful hunting arm WITHIN ITS RANGE.
Dan

[northmn]

Those that try them usually find that big bores do a pretty fair job beyond their "paper" ballistics.  Most of the formulas derived for stopping power were an attempt to try to explain why the big bores seemed to work more consistantly in practice than the HV magnums.  I can and have gotten long winded on this but essentially the big bullets can handle the impact energy better than little bullets.  The math of collisions works that way.  Compare the damage to a car that has hit say a big oak tree to one that has hit another parked car at the same speed where both cars cave in.  Also if you look at TOF's  posted ad concerning the round ball guns.  Caliber was stipulated as an important consideration for range.  As they are stated to be target rifles they must have been used at longer ranges. Why 300 yards as a maximum?  Were target ranges up to that range?  Limitation of iron sights?  Although BPC shooters hit further away.  Where did that magic number come from?

DP 

[T*O*F]

big bullets can handle the impact energy better than little bullets.

To further the analogy..........I shot a .62 rifle for many years.  When asked why, I would always answer with this question.

Would you rather be speeding down the interstate at 120 mph and get hit in the forehead with a june bug; or, would you rather get hit by a freight train doing 20 mph.  They usually got the point.

[Dphariss]

Those that try them usually find that big bores do a pretty fair job beyond their "paper" ballistics.  Most of the formulas derived for stopping power were an attempt to try to explain why the big bores seemed to work more consistantly in practice than the HV magnums.  I can and have gotten long winded on this but essentially the big bullets can handle the impact energy better than little bullets.  The math of collisions works that way.  Compare the damage to a car that has hit say a big oak tree to one that has hit another parked car at the same speed where both cars cave in.  Also if you look at TOF's  posted ad concerning the round ball guns.  Caliber was stipulated as an important consideration for range.  As they are stated to be target rifles they must have been used at longer ranges. Why 300 yards as a maximum?  Were target ranges up to that range?  Limitation of iron sights?  Although BPC shooters hit further away.  Where did that magic number come from?

DP 

Because even picket bullets are too short to shoot well past this and even 300 is stretching it.
None of the rifles in the catalog are particularly large bore, largest mentioned is about 55-56.
Long heavy bullets such as used by the heavy bench rifles like those made by Warner will shoot into 1-2 minutes (3-6) at 300 for long strings of shots, 15-50 rounds. Lighter bullets just will not in *most* cases.

Dan

[northmn]

O know some wonderful shooting can be done at 300 yards with peep sights and modern rifles and BPC's.  But when someone makes a claim that the rifle is good to 300 yards what is the criteria?  Can it hit a specified bullseye, a barn or was that a common claim by hunters for longer shots?  We all are familiar enough with our ML's to be able to shoot at 100-150, but as a target shooter I do know that a 200 gauge may on a good day give something of a group at longer ranges but it is it is not practical beyond 75-100 yards.  A 40 or above is needed and a 45 is better at 100-150 yards.  A 40 is about a 65 gauge.  300 yards is a darn long shot for the "average" shooter to make with a scoped modern rifle.  It takes a bit of shooting to get good enough to hit anything resembling game at that range.   Hits are made at very long ranges.  I shot a crow once at about 300 yards with a 22 hornet, but do not expect to duplicate that particular shot again.  Its the same way with people that hit a gong at longer range with a small caliber.  Put it on a bullseye and then compare to a larger bore. 

DP

[tg]

"The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories.  The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?"  These are not specialized guns.'

This is some good stuff, a bit later than I usually get into but interesting, I do wonder if back at that time there was the concept of "advertizment hype"
as we have today with many things?

[FL-Flintlock]

"The whole point is that guns were offered and advertised by range, without any optional sighting accessories.  The question is, "when, between 1871 and now, did people quit believing that roundball guns were not capable of 300 yard accuracy?"  These are not specialized guns.'

This is some good stuff, a bit later than I usually get into but interesting, I do wonder if back at that time there was the concept of "advertizment hype"
as we have today with many things?

tg,

On the yardage question, I can't give you a specific date but it's when people stopped trying. 

(I hate to hijack this thread yet again but I don't have an option for these analogies)  When did it become mandatory that one needed an optical sight (scope) to shoot a deer or turkey?  Remember the "MAGNUM 80's" which have dragged on since?  This where you can't possibly kill a turkey at 25 yards with anything less than a scoped super magnum camo covered gun slinging 2+ ounces of shot from the latest shoulder breaking MEGA-MAGNUM!  When did the change take place in the rifle world where 3"-4" groups at 100yds became acceptable for big game hunting?  Then again, when did groups change from 5, 7 or 10 rounds to just 3 rounds?  When did the change come that people have to remove the rifle from their shoulder and reposition their entire body to cycle a bolt or lever action take more time and effort than if they were cycling a single shot.

As for the marketing hype... one of my favorites are these new "short magnums" where the key point made in every single ad is "fast follow-up shot".  Well, in my opinion, if this new loudenboomer magnum was so great, why in the heck should I need to worry about a follow-up shot at all let alone how fast I can get one off?  How about the "almost" rounds like the .45GAP ... actual quote from their ads said something to the effect, "provides almost the same performance as the .45acp" - okay, the .38 Super is almost as good as the .45acp too - what's your point?

The same goes for the quality of the guns themselves.  If one was to buy a higher priced production model, he could expect to get a gun assembled with at least reasonable craftsmanship - go pull a half dozen $750+ rifles off the store rack and take a good look at them.  Swirls from orbital sanders standing out under the finish like thousands of little neon signs; barrel channels cut so there's barely 0.0625" of wood on one side and nearly 0.250" on the other; machine stamped checkering that is way out of plane from side to side; recoil pads installed shy on one side and hanging over on the other ... and this is now days considered not only "acceptable quality" but it's actually praised by many!

Look back in time and you'll see many difference, not the least of which is that no one had the attitude of "it can't be done", the attitude was "let's find a way to make it work".  When conical first started appearing on the scene, their terminal wound creating ability was compared to that of a round ball.  Even years later when BP cartridges came out, the bullets were designed to create a wound channel that was as effective as a round ball and is the sole reason why round nose bullets were the favored choice for hunting. 

As far as shooting target with round balls from an ML beyond a given range, look at the constant barrage of negative comments made about them by the modern gun rag prostitutes.  Facts do not matter, all that matters is who offers the highest bid for their writing services.  The cheap $#@* guns and low-quality or poorly designed components don't help matters either.  I don't care how good the barrel or anything else is, you put a front sight on it that's big enough in diameter to cover a 12" bullseye at 100yds, you are not going to be able to accurately place your shots at 100yds let alone 300yds.  I don't care if you want to talk ML's or the most modern loudenboomer magnums, pick up any production built gun that comes with sights and you'll take note that high-production mfg's have some sort of fixation with seeing who can installing the largest and worst possible sights - I often have to wonder if the scope mfg's aren't supplying sights to gun factories for free just to promote their own optical products.

So yes, it's part advertising, it's part poor quality equipment, it's part poor quality components and it's mostly apathetic/ignorant users.  Just look at the in-line users, one of their common arguments is "it's easy to clean".  Anyone who is primarily a traditional gun shooter will quickly see that cleaning an in-line not only requires special tools but the process take at least four times longer to complete than cleaning up your favorite rocklock.  Another thing is this claim of "fast follow-up shot" - again, look at the amount of special tools and supplies you have to carry for them and you'll again see that you can accurately place two balls from your flinter to every rushed shot with an in-line.  Point is, facts don't matter anymore, all that matters now days is bragging rights based on sales hype.  It's the same when you show-up at the sporting clays shoot with anything less than the latest $2500+ "sporting clays special" gun and another $1000 of designer tagged special sporting clays apparel.  Been there, done that and more than once - show-up in work jeans and a tee shirt, carry my ammo & empties in an old cotton haversack and listen to the sneers and nasty comments from others ... until the shooting starts and they realize they're getting their butts handed to them by a mere peasant using a plain barrel single brass bead model 12 Winchester 20ga built in 1926 and running brass hulls loaded with card wads and black powder.  I built my custom machinery business thanks to all the alleged experts claiming "it can't be done" - while they specialized in creating excuses, I was busy solving the problem - ignorance and apathy got them no where.

[doug]

      It seems to me that in the 1950s and 60s, a 3" group at 100 yds was considered to be average accuracy to be expected from a production hunting rifle.  And to get back to long range roundball, in the 1800s there was a very different ethic around killing game.  At least some people seemed to blaze away regardless of range not in the hope of a heart shot but more of a wounding shot that would slow the animal down enough for the shooter to catch up to it.  Baker for example comments on shooting an elephant at somewhere around 600 yds (Rifle & Hound in Ceylon) although they had to ride up to it to finish it off.

cheers Doug

[northmn]

All of what has been said has merit.  We have been brainwashed by modern marketers and see people that think that you have to have a scope to hit a moose at 50 yards.  But when I see an ad that says that this rifle will perform out to this range I am interested in how it performs.  Billy Dixon is said to have shot an Apache at about a mile at Adobe Wells.  I personally think that that Apache was about the most unlucky individual in the West to have been hit at that range. No buffalo gun is really going to consistantly hit a man sized target at a mile and I think the Apache would have died by lightening anyway.  I bought a 270 that shot a lot of game based on reading Jack O'Connor and what an acquaintance did with his.  I pretty much know what one will do and have taken 200 plus yard shots with one on deer.  I have shot a few jackrabbits in Western MN with a 222 that really stretched the barrel.  These are modern cartridges with scopes designed to shoot at longer ranges.  Somewhere those people said that the ML's perform out to 300 yards.  At known ranges on targets you can do pretty good with any accurate rifle, on game it would take a lot of experience with iron sights and range judgement.  What are the parameters for someone to say I will use this round ball rifle at 300 yards?

DP

[jim m]

hey you guys all got it wrong.  round balls and especially flintlocks ain't accurate or reliable. I heard this as fact at a local rifle range just recently. and that great authority Toby Bridges says so 

[Leatherbelly]

Really? He said that? OK then,I'm selling all my flinters!

[FL-Flintlock]

Really? He said that? OK then,I'm selling all my flinters!

Just think about how Toby would loose his lunch if he found out ole Roy is running smoothbores to boot! 
             

[doug]

  Billy Dixon is said to have shot an Apache at about a mile at Adobe Wells.  I personally think that that Apache was about the most unlucky individual in the West to have been hit at that range.

      Apart from thinking that the range was actually in the 1100 to 1200 yd range, I also recall reading that Dixon said he was not sure if he hit the Indian or his horse; only the fellow dropped from view and that the shot was enough to convince the Indians that they were still in range of the shooters
      Back to the long range roundball, at least part of the equation (in my opinion) is keeping a constant sight picture and finding a sighting target to aim in relation to.  In other words a distinctive tree branch or rock or bush that you can see above the sights and that is roughly the amount of drop above the intended target.

cheers Doug