Long range roundball

[J.D.]

      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
     
cheers Doug

US Army surveyors, under the command of Nelson A. Miles, measured the distance of the shot: 1,538 yards, or nine-tenths of a mile. And though Billy Dixon never claimed the shot was anything other than a lucky one; that's still good shoot'n.

[Dphariss]

I have recently read, from someone who did some research, that this shot was not mentioned by any of the participants of the Adobe Walls fight and in fact only came to light after Dixon's death when his wife published the book.
Since  the researcher claims it appears nowhere else previously its suspect.
However, JacK Bean's similar range shot during the "Wagon Road Expedition" detailed in "The 1874 Invasion of Montana: A Prelude to the Custer Disaster" by Don L. Weibert  is pretty well documented. But he had a scope sighted 44-90. Range was something over 1200. There were three possible sites where the indians might have been and one was 1700 IIRC. The book on this "expedition" was a limited production run and its hard to find. But it gives some interesting insights into events leading Custers defeat.
Since this took place in 1874 or 75  and was reported at the time, it is a possible basis for the later writing of the Billy Dixon shot.

Dan

[Dphariss]

"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?

While it is possible to hit a man at 300 with a RB compared to a rifle such as a 40-45 caliber or even a 50 Sharps or one of the ML slug guns of pre-Civil War America they are pretty random in they grouping at this distance.
Hype?
P.T Barnum was born in 1810...
From Wikipedia;
"In 1842, Barnum introduced his first major hoax, the "Fejee" mermaid, which he leased from fellow museum owner Moses Kimball of Boston, who became his friend, confidant, and collaborator. He justified his hoaxes or "humbugs" as "advertisements to draw attention...to the Museum. I don't believe in duping the public, but I believe in first attracting and then pleasing them....."
Dan

[northmn]

As stated, if that shot was made, whoever got shot was the unluckiest person in the West and whoever made it was very lucky.  Just for further thought, for long range shooting with a BP firearm a few things have to be in place.  First the rifle has to be relatively accurate.  A 2" group at 100 yards does not mean a 6" group at 300.  You have to be able to see the target and know the range.  And you have to have sights that will permit more precise shooting.  Were I to make a long range percussion or flint, it would have to of course have a good barrel, but as importantly it would ahve to have a very good lock trigger system and ignition system.  The cheaper rifles advertised may not have double set triggers for instance (since they were cheaper it is a good way to sell better rifles by stating their limitations).  Globe and peep sights were advertised.   Two hundred yards or a little less might be stretching open sights, but a good peep sight system can be pretty accurate out to 300 yards. The better ones adjust so that you can hold dead on for varying ranges.  The biggest problem for long range shooting with a BP firearm is its trajectory beyond about 100 yards.   After 200 a misjudgement of 25 yards or so might cause a miss.  I was amused at books written by Louis LaMour when he mentioned some ranchers painting ranges on the backs of rocks.  Whether it was done I have no idea but it would have been a good one.

DP

[Candle Snuffer]

"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?

I can't imagine anyone who has ever shot a traditional round ball muzzle loader would doubt the rifle's ability to put the ball on the mark within their practiced range of confidence of hitting their target.  that would be up to each individual and the confidence they had.

I do believe that the Civil War put forth the idea;

1842 .69 caliber Percussion "Springfield" Muskets firing Buck & ball from 70 to 100 yards  --or-- 1861 .58 caliber Springfield Rifled-Muskets from 200 to 300 yards firing the minie ball.

The sheer volume of men involved in the Civil War could have swayed opinions of the day from April of 1865 well into 1871 and beyond, loving and/or cursing the minie ball?

[Leatherbelly]

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! 
             

I hit a big hot water tank ,the kind from those old kitchen wood burners. A few rifle shooters were hitting it,but my smoothie kinda bowled into it! One bounce is all tho! Ha! I got a punch for it,none the less! 300 yds offhand is a long shot with any kind of firearm, primitive or modern. With the 62 smooth,it's a "hail Mary" shot!

[FL-Flintlock]

Roy,  You just gotta love it - "hail Mary" or not, the ploink is all that counts! 


I still say the biggest problem is the myths and some flat-out lies perpetrated by the gun rags.  No matter if the negatives originate from pure ignorance, failure to separate myth from fact or the intentional lies associated with "marketing by negative" (knocking down similar products rather than having one they can sell on its own merits)

The claim that shots cannot be placed accurately beyond 50, 100, 150 or X yards of range with open sights is BS.  Three things account for accuracy at any given range: 
1-  The equipment's ability to produce accuracy - the overall quality of the gun that is properly constructed with quality sights, quality ammunition components contained in a load that is tuned to the gun.   

2-  The shooter's willingness to accomplish the task at hand - If the shooter is not willing to do their part then the gun cannot do its part. 

3-  Environmental conditions - I don't care if you're shooting a smoothbore matchlock or the latest mega-magnum, everything is affected by winds, thermal currents, rain, snow, ect. and some more than others.

I feel that number two is the biggest problem of all.  Shooters of today have allowed themselves to become apathetic and ignorant.  The read an article in a gun rag that claims open sights are not accurate beyond 50 yards and they believe it.  The manufacturer put some giant bead on top of a post and the consumer blindly accepts it as being "first rate".  (I deal with this on a regular basis with the vintage Ford Mustangs - the most common argument is "rust proofing wasn't put on at the factory, it's got to be factory".  My reply is,  "the factory didn't put anti-seize on the bolts going through or into aluminum either and it just cost you $600 to repair a part that could have been saved by a penny's worth of anti-seize."  Ignorance is costly to those who embrace it and profitable to those who can exploit it.) 

The design of the sight system is as important as the barrel itself.  You can have an extremely accurate barrel & load yet the giant-size front sight that covers 48" of view at 150 yards will destroy any possibility of obtaining an accurate sight picture.  No way around it, the finer the sights, the finer the accuracy can be and if the shooter is not willing to seek out and install proper sights, then all is resting on the apathy of the shooter.   Same goes for selecting ammunition/loads - if the shooter is willing to put the effort into checking the weight & balance of every ball/bullet and accurately building loads to match the select projectiles and which compliments the gun, then there is a reasonable expectation of accuracy. 

Far too much reliance is put on equipment these days because the shooters are apathetic as to what is required of them.  You can take a modern rifle & ammo that is capable of stacking bullets end to end at 600 yards and put it in the hands of an apathetic shooter and it will be of no value at 100 yards let alone 600 yards.  Take that same rifle and put it in the hands of a dedicated shooter and he/she will make it sing at 1000 yards or more. 

The most accurate rifle with factory loaded ammo I have ever owned in a Mosin-Nagant 91/30 built in 1937 and in capable hands, I'd put it up against any sporter ever made using commercial factory ammo and OEM iron sights.  Thing is, if you spent five minutes searching the web, I'm sure you'll find hundreds of gun rag articles written by "experts" telling you how poor the accuracy is with this rifle.

Fact of the matter is, these self-proclaimed experts are experts at nothing more than selling their writing skills.  If writer A writes an article telling readers that by simply replacing the junk OEM iron sights with quality ones, they can shoot accurately over the iron at much longer ranges - writer A is not going to be able to sell his writing skills to company B that makes rifle scopes.  It's no different than the auctioneer, every single gun that came up for sale was "best I've ever seen".  After an hour of listening to that $#@*, I was pushed over the edge, I stood up and said, "If these are the best you've ever seen, you obviously don't get out much." - I didn't wait for him to ask me to leave.

Thing is, just like at that auction where people were paying on average 150%-300% above what the items were worth simply because they listened to the BS the auctioneer was telling them, likewise these same people will read some $#@* from a gun rag writer and just accept it as fact and never get beyond their own self-inflicted apathy.

[Leatherbelly]

Mark,
 Well said! Now why didn't I say that?!! Thanks Mark.

[longcruise]

Watching a History channel episode titled "The Shot" the other night, the claim was made that a british soldier was supposed to be able to place his shots on a man at 900 yards.  This was either with a smoothie or a rifle gun, did not catch which.

That with either smooth or rifled seems probably to be an erroneous statement, however it was made by and "expert"

Maybe some of our Brit historians can shed some light on this?

[Dphariss]

Watching a History channel episode titled "The Shot" the other night, the claim was made that a british soldier was supposed to be able to place his shots on a man at 900 yards.  This was either with a smoothie or a rifle gun, did not catch which.

That with either smooth or rifled seems probably to be an erroneous statement, however it was made by and "expert"

Maybe some of our Brit historians can shed some light on this?

During what period?? Round balls unless very large, 1" or so, simply will not go that far.
The Civil War era Whitworth would do this with some regularity but probably not every shot. Some were scoped. They were so feared that at the end of the war (I am told) most of the Confederate Whitworths were destroyed buy the Union Army.
I think there is a surviving scoped version that came out of Texas in the last few years.
But the Whitworth used a bullet about 3 calibers long.

Dan

[T*O*F]

Round balls unless very large, 1" or so, simply will not go that far.

C'mon Dan
Your prejudices are starting to make you sound like Fred Miller (not the barrel inletter).

Dig out Hatcher's Notebook and re-read the chapter on How Far Will My Gun Shoot.
In the table for maximum roundball ranges he lists:
.645 roundball..........1420 yards
.545 roundball..........1200 yards
.410 roundball..........850  yards

[northmn]

If it was a round ball shot by a British soldier I would expect it to be a rather large bore as common with British mentality.  The Baker rifle (if I remember correctly) was about a 20 gauge or 62 caliber.  Kind of short barreled like the Jaeger.  One British officer wrote that a Bess "if not excedingly ill bored) would place its shots in a man at 80 yards.  I assume he meant with the fast loading paper cartridges.  A very far cry from 900.   What can be done on a 900 yard range and what can be done in the field would be different.  Today they use laser rangefinders.  Back then they had to assume a standard height of a person and use a reference against that height.  Army's back then, did not train marksmanship.  British officers despised American riflemen because they tended to pick off British officers which was really unsporting and ungentlemenly, don't you know old chap.  Also ammunition and training was considered too expensive.  Marksmanship training by our military really did not occur until possibly after the Spanish American War.  They merely took advantage of those who could shoot already.  On a visit to Fort Snelling they pointed out that the soldiers were so busy cutting wood for winter, raising gardens and other duties just to survive that there was little time left for military training.

DP

[Dphariss]

Round balls unless very large, 1" or so, simply will not go that far.

C'mon Dan
Your prejudices are starting to make you sound like Fred Miller (not the barrel inletter).

Dig out Hatcher's Notebook and re-read the chapter on How Far Will My Gun Shoot.
In the table for maximum roundball ranges he lists:
.645 roundball..........1420 yards
.545 roundball..........1200 yards
.410 roundball..........850  yards

Prejudices???
I don't have Hatcher's Notebook. But I do have a friend who does and he also did actual firing tests 20 odd years ago.  He claims that he could not get his 54 caliber flintlock rifle to shoot to 1000 yards. If I find the article he wrote about it I could give better details.
I suggest you consider that according to Lyman the 535 rb started at 1800 fps is falling over an inch a yard at 300 yards and looses 37 fps between 275 and 300. If we take this velocity loss per yard we find that if it continues to lose velocity at this rate, 37 fps per 25 yards (which it probably will not but lets say it does), it will loose over 1000 fps getting to 1000 yards. This is interesting since its only doing 617 fps at 300 yards. If is looses only 18 fps average over each 25 yard segment for the rest of the 600 remaining yards (going to "only" 900 yards) we get a velocity loss in excess of 400 fps.
As I said unless very large a RB is not going to travel to 900-1000 yards. Is simply falling too steep.
At a rate of fall of over 1" a yard  it will fall in excess of 600 inches even if it looses NO velocity at all.
So we now must ask what was Hatcher's initial velocity and are the distances bases on actual testing.
Based on actual testing and Lyman's data Hatcher is in error unless he is using a very high initial velocity such as might be obtained with smokeless powder or HE as in a bursting charge.
Dan

[J.D.]

I read an article on the net about tests performed on several black powder rifle calibers.

The tests were conducted on a government testing range with the extreme ranges measured by radar.

All calibers, 45-70 to 50-110, I think, exceeded ranges thought possible by experts in the field.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, nor did I save the URL.

Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range. I would have copied that information had round ball guns been tested.

I only mention this because the maximum ranges measured by radar exceeded maximum ranges calculated for those calibers. The same might be said for max ranges for round ball, even though they obviously will not reach out as far as conical bullets fired in a cartridge rifle.

IMHO, no matter how those max ranges are calculated, no one can know how far those old guns will shoot unless someone actually measures the distance from the muzzle to the point of impact of the ball.

Anyone have access to a range capable of accurately determining the max range of round ball guns?

[T*O*F]

Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range.

JD,
Between you and Dan, I give up.  The definitive information is there, you guys just haven't read it.

Hatcher's Notebook, 640 pages, was first published in 1947.  It is one of THE most definitive gun books ever written.  My copy is the 1957 edition that I bought 42 years ago and first learned ballistics from.

Maj. Gen. Julian Hatcher was in charge of Ordnance and Small Arms testing at Frankford Armory for many years.  He used the full compliment of tools and men at his disposal to do all kinds of testing.  In "How far will my gun shoot" he lined spotters down the beach of the ocean on dead calm days and fired guns from a platform in the ocean.  They noted the bullet strikes as they hit the water.  Angles, velocities, etc were all noted and recorded.

He was the first to mechanically aim a gun straight up at 90 degrees from the same platform to see where the bullets hit when they returned to earth.  They measured terminal velocities to determine which calibers and bullet weights would injure a man under those conditions.

He was the first to test what happens if you throw bullets in the fire, and will they injure a man.  These are just a couple of the tests he ran.  He was a superb mathematician and ballistician.  The book is full of formulas, graphs, etc.

I just can't believe that any "gun nut" doesn't have this book in their library  It's one of the classics, as opposed to Lyman's book which is just "everyman's" reference.

[Dphariss]

I read an article on the net about tests performed on several black powder rifle calibers.

The tests were conducted on a government testing range with the extreme ranges measured by radar.

All calibers, 45-70 to 50-110, I think, exceeded ranges thought possible by experts in the field.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, nor did I save the URL.

Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range. I would have copied that information had round ball guns been tested.

I only mention this because the maximum ranges measured by radar exceeded maximum ranges calculated for those calibers. The same might be said for max ranges for round ball, even though they obviously will not reach out as far as conical bullets fired in a cartridge rifle.

IMHO, no matter how those max ranges are calculated, no one can know how far those old guns will shoot unless someone actually measures the distance from the muzzle to the point of impact of the ball.

Anyone have access to a range capable of accurately determining the max range of round ball guns?

Personally know BOTH the shooters. They used a 45-2 7/8" with a 550 grain and a 50- 2.5" with a 650 (IIRC).
EVERYONE except a few gov't "experts" knew how far they would shoot since the 45-70-500, the 45-80-500 and the 577-450  were tested in the 1870s-80s by the US military.
As I have stated about 3 times now a friend did LR testing with a 54 RB and could not get it past about 950-975 (IIRC). I discussed this in a recent conversation abut the 300 yard shot and told me, again, that the 54 will not shoot to 1000.
I could probably do some testing but its totally pointless since even if you could get a ball to 900-1000 yards it is virtually impossible to hit a target, unless its HUGE when the bullet is falling within a few degrees of vertical.

Dan

[J.D.]

I do have a copy of Hatcher's notebook that I had forgotten about, but didn't see any information on max range of round ball ML rifles. Lots and lots of information on cartridge ammunition, but apparently missed the tables on round ball guns. How about some page numbers.

[northmn]

I tend to agree that at extreme ranges like 900 yards a slug gun was likely used. They are about the only type of shoulder held BP firearm capable of that type of precison.  Also it seemed like their development spurred that type of shooting interest.  The Whitworth was a British rifle exported to the confederacy.  A Whitworth is also capable of that type of shooting.  When the Irish rifle team invited the US shooters over to show us how to shoot they were using muzzleloaders against the cartridge Sharps.  We only beat them by one shot the first year.  This was I believe at 1000 yards.  The rifled musket of the civil war was claimed to be effective up to 600 yards (claimed to be, not saying it was)  and the war was a bloody one due to Napolean Tactics used against rifles.  Whether or not round ball had that range, there seems to be no records of extreme range target shooting with them like there was with the slug guns.  Could a big bore round ball do someone damage at 900 yards, yes.  The chaces of hitting are slim.  I go back to TOFS ad about round ball rifles and 300 yard accuracy.  They were at that time starting to compete with MLs rifled for slugs and cartridge guns.  Advertising accuracy for longer ranges would have been likely in 1871.  Just a thought.

DP 

[T*O*F]

I go back to TOFS ad about round ball rifles and 300 yard accuracy.  They were at that time starting to compete with MLs rifled for slugs and cartridge guns.  Advertising accuracy for longer ranges would have been likely in 1871.

In my readings thru the years, I have come across numerous instances of shooting matches with roundball flint guns dating to the 18th century.  Can't quote sources, but anyone who has done lots of reading would have come across them also.
They knew their guns intimately then, because their lives depended on them.   It was a common practice to load 1/2, full, or double measures of powder depending on the target and they knew where each one hit.

[northmn]

There were all kinds of matches with all kinds of guns.  One artist at one time had a rather humerous painting of one about Revolutionary times where they were shooting at a bulbous nose of a redcoat painted on a door.  Even seen special flinters built up for targets including one with a long tube covering the sights.  What I meant was that I have never seen any reference to what I will call extreme range matches such as the 1000 yard stuff, with roundball and flintlocks of a formal nature like there was for the slugs.  The BPC crowd has revived a few extreme range matches but I do not know of any for MLs.  There are MLs that can compete against cartridge guns, and Pedersoli is selling one now, but it is definitely not a round ball gun.  Most of the older matches were more like the mention one made of the call for riflemen that could hit a playing card at 100 paces.  Were there any clls for Riflement to hit anything at even long ranges such as a quarter mile?  Maybe, but I have not heard of them, which I will admit is hardly definitive.  300 yards is a very healthy shot with a RB of any normal caliber.

DP

[Dphariss]

Unfortunately, no round ball guns were tested, so we don't have any definitive information as to maximum range.

JD,
Between you and Dan, I give up.  The definitive information is there, you guys just haven't read it.

Hatcher's Notebook, 640 pages, was first published in 1947.  It is one of THE most definitive gun books ever written.  My copy is the 1957 edition that I bought 42 years ago and first learned ballistics from.

Maj. Gen. Julian Hatcher was in charge of Ordnance and Small Arms testing at Frankford Armory for many years.  He used the full compliment of tools and men at his disposal to do all kinds of testing.  In "How far will my gun shoot" he lined spotters down the beach of the ocean on dead calm days and fired guns from a platform in the ocean.  They noted the bullet strikes as they hit the water.  Angles, velocities, etc were all noted and recorded.

He was the first to mechanically aim a gun straight up at 90 degrees from the same platform to see where the bullets hit when they returned to earth.  They measured terminal velocities to determine which calibers and bullet weights would injure a man under those conditions.

He was the first to test what happens if you throw bullets in the fire, and will they injure a man.  These are just a couple of the tests he ran.  He was a superb mathematician and ballistician.  The book is full of formulas, graphs, etc.

I just can't believe that any "gun nut" doesn't have this book in their library  It's one of the classics, as opposed to Lyman's book which is just "everyman's" reference.

You need to do some research on your own. Bullets in a fire launch the cartridge case as hard or harder than the bullets according to recent tests I have watched on TV. However, 308s belted in disintegrating link belts the bullets will pierce a 55 gal drum burn barrel. I KNOW this from personal experience.

[northmn]

Guy by the name of Newton.  For every reaction there is an equal an opposite reaction.  A cartridge ignited in a fire has no breech, the bullet and case should  both take off.  Just for grins and chuckles I found another reference to the 300 yard range of a roundball.  Quote from a British officer "provided an American Rifleman were to get a perfect aim at 300 yards at me, standing still, he most undoubtedly would hit, unless it was a very windy day"  Interesting.  found the quote in an old boom on Remington firearms.  They also mentioned the shooting matches such as beef and turkey shoots, but no mention was made of extreme range shooting.

DP

[FL-Flintlock]

You need to do some research on your own. Bullets in a fire launch the cartridge case as hard or harder than the bullets according to recent tests I have watched on TV. However, 308s belted in disintegrating link belts the bullets will pierce a 55 gal drum burn barrel. I KNOW this from personal experience.

I was on the nozzle in a sporting goods store fire, don't know how many hundreds of rounds cooked off but the only problems that existed were some primers from shotgun shells that came out with some force that could be dangerous to unprotected eyes/skin.  All the rifle ammo that cooked blew the sides of the cases out and much of it didn't go far from where it was to start with, a few feet at most.  Cartridges that cooked off in their paper & styrofoam factory boxes, sides swelled and split open on the brass.  No evidence was ever found from projectiles moving more than a few inches from were the case ruptured.  Perhaps with a very strong steel cartridge case and an insufficient crimp on the bullet maybe but this would be an exception rather than the rule.

[jerrywh]

I have an english sporting rifle of .54 cal. It has a express sight blade set at 200 yds. With a load of 85 fffg at 200 yds, a 15 to 20 mph wind blows the ball off target as much as 46".  Guns shoot better now than they ever did in history. Yeah you can hit something at 300 yards if everything is perfect including the shooter. It doesn't happen very often. The energy of that ball at 300 yards is about 200 ft. lbs.

[Roger Fisher]

I have an english sporting rifle of .54 cal. It has a express sight blade set at 200 yds. With a load of 85 fffg at 200 yds, a 15 to 20 mph wind blows the ball off target as much as 46".  Guns shoot better now than they ever did in history. Yeah you can hit something at 300 yards if everything is perfect including the shooter. It doesn't happen very often. The energy of that ball at 300 yards is about 200 ft. lbs.

  Blue Mt ML Club at Shartlesville, Pa runs a match (August) each yr in which we shoot at a Jaeger target offhand at 200 measured yds.  X ring is abt 1 1/2 inches and the 10 ring is around 2 3/4 inches at a dollar a shot.  $100. to the shooter closest to the X. If Irecall correctly they have fired this match for 9 yrs now and one ol guy has won either 4 or 5 times.   Once with his first shot!!!! .   His rifle has fixed sights and he uses a heavy' holdover.  He admits it is more luck than brains..        .454 ball .015 spit 80 Goex.