Author Topic: Rifle Accuracy 1776  (Read 104659 times)

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #200 on: December 09, 2013, 09:06:35 PM »
I have long held a theory that the American longrifle was never intended as a long range weapon but was designed for very precise shot placement at moderate ranges (a hundred yards or less), and that as a normal thing folks didn't shoot much over that range.

I would agree with this simply because of the "over the log" shooting match which we know to have been (at least the one recorded and attended by Davy Crockett in 1831) - 40 yards offhand, or 60 yards with a rest (over the log).  This does tend to lend support to the above quote.

see;
http://www.muzzleblasts.com/archives/vol3no2/articles/mbo32-1.shtml

I had a chance to visit with a long time member of the U.S. International Muzzleloading Team a couple of weekends ago and he had what I thought might be some interesting observations on this discussion.

He also mentioned that Flintlock Longrifle Matches were not held past 100 yards in the 18th century and even that distance was rare with shorter distances being common.  He also mentioned a common target was a slab of wood that was charred/blackened on one side and a square with an "X" crossing the corners on it was carved on the charred side with a knife.  It was a "one shot" match and whoever hit closest to the center of the X won the match.  I had never heard of that before and I thought others might find that interesting. 

He also mentioned that he remembered one 18th century hunting pouch that had a pistol length ramrod inside the pouch.  Though it may have only been used to load the pouch owner's pistol, there has been some speculation it was used as a short starter for the pouch owner's rifle as well.  If it was used that way, I imagine the owner used his knife handle to push the pistol length rod and patched ball down the bore.  He is going to research this more and get back with me the next time I see him at a gun show

Gus.     

Offline George Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #201 on: December 10, 2013, 04:30:18 AM »
A few years ago Brian Speciale, Host of the Impossible Shots Program, asked me to make a long distance shot with my flintlock rifle. He wanted a three hundred yard shot. Prior to this I had shot a gallon milk jug at two hundred yards. That shot was fairly easy. I had also shot a pint bottle at one hundred yards. All shots were taken offhand.

In my opinion the difference in difficulty between a two hundred and three hundred yard shot is huge. For the 300 yd. shot we placed a balloon about the size of a man's head on a four foot stake. My first shot hit the stake four inches from the bottom, after that shot, it all went downhill. We were shooting into a dark background and could not see where the ball was impacting. My point of aim was well above the target I would guess somewhere between five and ten feet. It may have been easier if I had a well lit background and a good point of aim, but I didn't.

I tried multiple times with my .58 cal rifle then I switched to my .45 cal rifle. I hit it on the fourth or fifth shot with the .45. It took me a total of an hour and a half to make the shot.

I would argue based on my experience that routine 300 yard shots were not the norm during the 18th century and then, as now it was more luck than skill.

Skilled riflemen were few and far between until well into the war and then they fought mostly in the Southern Theatre. Most soldiers were equipped with smoothbore muskets and not rifles. There were very few recorded rifles in New England prior to the Rev War. They did not start appearing here until after the revolution.

These rifles are not conical bullet guns they are round ball guns that being said they have serious limitations, when it comes to shooting long distances. They are not designed for 300 yard shooting. That's not to say that you can't lock one into a good rest and get some semblance of a group but your not going to do it offhand.

You can argue about powder, ball weight, wind, bullet drop, etc.,etc.,etc. but like Dan stated, stop typing and go try it. It AINT easy.

That's my two cents ;D

Centershot

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #202 on: December 10, 2013, 05:43:01 AM »
Centershot,
Thanks for chiming in and relating your experience.

I was wondering if you might answer some questions about the shooting you mentioned to give us a clearer picture?

1.  You mentioned that the background of the target was dark.  Was this because it was close to dusk or nightfall or was it due to forest or trees behind it or something else like a cloudy day?  I also wonder if the balloon was of a color that stood out enough for you to see it clearly and I suppose it did?  I’m sure not being able to identify where a missed shot struck was amplified during an actual battle and not just target shooting.

2.  This one REALLY interests me.  Are the sights low like on original rifles or are they higher off the barrel like many of us use today?  Along with that, did you try to align the bottom of the front sight with the top of your rear sight?  This last question goes to the theory that has been suggested on this thread that perhaps they could align the bottom of the front sight or even the barrel under the front sight, with the rear sight for accurate long range shots.  I could see how they could sight in at the bottom of the front sight for longer range, but I’m not sure how valuable that would be for 300 yard shots.

3.  What was your aiming point and how did you align the sights when you shot the gallon size milk jugs at 200 yards?   OH, and at what range is that rifle or rifles sighted in at normally?

I really appreciate the information you gave and would greatly appreciate the answers to these questions.

Gus

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #203 on: December 10, 2013, 06:26:47 AM »
The problem with larger cal. round ball rifles, as far as longer distance shots are concerned, is.....most don't load enough powder to get the velocities up to what you can more readily attain with a .45 or even a .50    My friends and I used to shoot at 200 yds  on a regular basis  .  Most were shooting .54 cal rifles and 80 to 100 gr of powder.  We had aperture sights and could just dial in the setting and let loose.  Wind and even temp made a big difference in adjustments, but once you got to know your rifle, hits on a MNLRA 200 yd target  were more common than not.  One of the best shooting displays was by a fellow who had a .45 cal under  hammer percussion.   He was loading the same charges as the rest of us.
My back 40 range behind the house was 300 yds, and I had a steel ram hung on chains there. It is about 28 in from nose to tail and 14 in the body not counting the legs.  I got to where I could ring that steel on a routine basis with my .50 cal and 110 gr FFg  not by aiming at a point above the target, but rather by imagining a mark or sight picture which put the from sight above the rear, and letting my eye centre it. It is like using a smoothbore , but the rear sight gives a point of reference which makes the sight picture more repeatable . You are in fact imagining a taller rear sight [ Hope I'm explaining this properly]   Once you have that sight picture in mind, you are in business !  I don't mind aiming at the top edge of a target, but I hate trying to aim off the target . This method works much better for me. 

Offline George Sutton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 755
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #204 on: December 10, 2013, 04:47:49 PM »
Hi Gus, my sights are typical of the sights you see on most contemporary flintlock rifles. I have an ivory inlay in the front sight and the top rear of the front sight is beveled, thereby creating a bead.

It was a bright sunny day, the background was dark due to trees, typical Maine woods, mixed conifers and hardwood. If you ever watch any of my videos you can see what the background looks like. I have been doing these shots in the same area since we started five or six years ago. I believe the balloon was white???

I always use Kentucky windage. I've never had much luck moving the alignment of the front and rear sights. I would be surprised if I had enough front sight for a 300 yard shot.

 For the 200 yard milk jug I held slightly above it and I may??? have got it on the first shot. I don't remember. If I did it was luck.

I think with adjustable peep or ladder sights on the rear and a globe bubble front sight you could do better. I have a Motto heavy barreled rifle with a 20 power Lyman scope on it and I could probably do better with it. But that's not what we're talking about. We could argue all day about the modern improvements we could make on these rifles to get more accuracy out of them. That's not what they had.

We are takling about shooting good size targets offhand at ranges beyond what these guns were designed for, typically these targets were moving. If you've ever heard a bullet snap as it passes your head, you don't look to see where it came from.

If you put enough lead down range you're going to hit something. How many times have you been plinking and someone say see if you can hit that impossible target out there, and you wing one at it and you hit it. I think it's a mixture of skill and luck, an educated guess.

As a side note, years ago I had an original Rev War powder horn about half full of powder. The stuff looked like minature popcorn. I lit some off and it ignighted well but I don't think I would use it in my rifles today. It's possible that it was cannon powder. I'll never know.

Centershot
« Last Edit: December 10, 2013, 05:20:42 PM by Centershot »

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #205 on: December 11, 2013, 12:09:56 AM »
Hi Centershot,

Thanks for your reply. 

OK, the dark background of your shot was the Maine woods and since I’ve been there, I know what you mean about it being difficult to pick up the target.  I suspect that a British Enlisted Man’s “Madder” Red Regimental Coat or a British Officer’s Scarlet Red Regimental Coat with what would look like a thin white line running down the center, due to the Weskit (period vest) worn underneath the “turned back” facings of the Regimental Coat, MAY be something that would stand out more to use as a target on a day with good light?  Still at 300 yards, it is not easy to distinguish color nearly as much as it is when closer than 100 yards.  Many times I’ve taken young Marines into the Virginia woods to show them their older pattern woodland camouflage pattern utility uniform (the Army calls them BDU’s) will no longer show as camouflage when the person is about 100 yards away and only looks like a dark outline of a man.

Your experience seems to confirm that one can not use the bottom of a front sight and align it with the rear sight for 300 yard shooting.  This is what I expected because of the drop of a round ball between 200 and 300 yards, but theory only goes so far and your experience seems to prove it. 

I very much agree that an offhand shot at 200 yards would be extremely difficult to hit when the target is moving and that’s even when the target is just walking.  Even when in the best prone position at 200 yards, that is not an easy shot on a walking target with period Sights. 

My extremely limited combat experience was such that we always saw the enemy or their muzzle flashes.  However, our Scout Snipers taught me that when a bullet is fired at you and you THINK it was behind you – it is not.  It actually means you don’t hear the “crack” or sonic boom till AFTER the bullet passes you and that can lead you to think the people shooting at you are behind you.  So Snipers are taught to “put the boom behind you” or face the opposite direction of the sound of the bullet passing you, to understand where the enemy is. 

I wonder if the original powder you found in the original powder horn you mentioned had swelled due to the powder not being coated and thus allowing humidity/moisture to swell the grains?  Of course, you are correct it might well have been cannon priming powder and that’s why it was never used for hunting and still in the horn when you got it.

Thanks again for your reply,
Gus

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #206 on: December 11, 2013, 12:15:33 AM »

My back 40 range behind the house was 300 yds, and I had a steel ram hung on chains there. It is about 28 in from nose to tail and 14 in the body not counting the legs.  I got to where I could ring that steel on a routine basis with my .50 cal and 110 gr FFg  not by aiming at a point above the target, but rather by imagining a mark or sight picture which put the from sight above the rear, and letting my eye centre it. It is like using a smoothbore , but the rear sight gives a point of reference which makes the sight picture more repeatable . You are in fact imagining a taller rear sight [ Hope I'm explaining this properly]   Once you have that sight picture in mind, you are in business !  I don't mind aiming at the top edge of a target, but I hate trying to aim off the target . This method works much better for me. 

Bob,

In the 70's, I shot a lot of Northwest Trade Gun Matches with my Brown Bess "Carbine" that did not have a rear sight.  However, I am a bit of a loss to understand what you are describing here.  Perhaps I am a bit "thick" on this one.  Grin.

Gus

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #207 on: December 11, 2013, 01:00:43 AM »
The front sight is on target. Rear sight is your eye....imagine the existence of a rear ladder/elevated sight. The existing rear sight helps with consistency .  I hope that is a better explanation.  I find this more workable than taking the front sight off the target.  I think that Elmer Keith used a similar variation in shooting his pistol at long range.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #208 on: December 11, 2013, 08:17:58 AM »
The front sight is on target. Rear sight is your eye....imagine the existence of a rear ladder/elevated sight. The existing rear sight helps with consistency .  I hope that is a better explanation.  I find this more workable than taking the front sight off the target.  I think that Elmer Keith used a similar variation in shooting his pistol at long range.

OK, I think I just got it.  What it sounds like what you are doing is raising your eye level and perhaps raising your cheek higher on or even off the stock a bit.  By raising your eye level, the muzzle is higher even when still using the front sight to aim and that will cause the ball to strike higher.  Never thought about trying that.  Thanks for the explanation.
Gus

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #209 on: December 11, 2013, 05:21:25 PM »
Exactly !   Estimating an inch or so above the top of the rear sight is easier than estimating a 10 ft hold over the target.
With the front sight on the target, repeatable hits are more easily achieved. This has worked for me out at my 300 yd steel target.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #210 on: December 11, 2013, 07:33:38 PM »
Bob,

That is an interesting technique, indeed. 

Since I've always had a bad astigmatism, I have to crowd as close to the rear sight as possible to shoot my best.  I also learned the value of a solid "spot weld" or cheek position in the Corps to be as close to exactly the same on every shot for accurate shooting.  I could see changing one's cheek position higher on the stock and still being able to maintain a fairly uniform cheek position which aids accuracy immensely.  Thanks for sharing that!

Gus

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #211 on: December 13, 2013, 07:22:42 PM »
"Holding front sight" is the normal method of long range pistol and revolver shooting as described by Elmer Keith.  Using that method enabled me to shoot reasonably well to 325 yards with my 4" M29 - Elmer was a great instructor for that type of shooting. Taylor and I found early, in the 70's, that that method also worked with our round ball rifles.  We still use it today for the 100 yard targets on our trail and other's trails.  Our front sights have about an 1/8" 45 degree slant of the rear edge. On the bush trail it shows as a little shiny spot - bead like and if held over the rear sight's flat (top of it's edge in the middle of the plate, it gives most every rifle I have, a change from a 50 yard zero to a 100 yard zero. Try it, you might like it.

Holding high does not work as well as holding middle with a 'proud' sight. 

If your rear notch is deep and you've sight your rifle for a 1/2 hold or 'fine' sight, then holding level with the top edge will add about 50 yards to your poi.  Right or wrong, this is the way W.W. Greener explained the "Kentucky" rifle sighting in the 9th edition of "The Gun etc".

With low rear and barely corn front sights, the front sight would fill the rear's notch. Thus the 'corn' was help 'proud' (above) the rear sight's top surface for longer range shooting.

Bob is describing holding the front sight higher and higher for longer and longer range shooting.  This brings the cheek higher and higher on the comb, just as an elevated rear sight makes you do this very thing.  This form of holding has come up on this site a number of times and each time we attempt to explain at as best as possible.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #212 on: December 14, 2013, 02:40:16 AM »
While I agree that the holding on a spot on the front sight works and is useful with modern sights. I have used it. The bottom of the insert on S&W revolver is useful for example.

If we figure the Schreit rifle has a 1/8" tall sight (this rifle has a nice photo of the front sight from the muzzle in RCA 1 so its a reference, some sights are lower) and a flat top rear. Holding the base of the front sight at the top of the rear would give 14" of elevation at 100 yards with a 32" sight radius. This translates to the ball crossing the line of sight again at about 190 yards +- with a 495 RB at 1800 fps and a .070 BC. According to Hornady's ballistics calculator.

So this would be useful at 200 yards with a 105-110 yard (106 yards is 20 rods) zero at 200 one could hold on the mans hat with a normal sight picture and have a good aiming point and a strike somewhere in the torso, top of my head to 27" low would be a good hit if the enemy has a tall hat? Chest hit.  100 yard zero would still be over my belt buckle. IF the rev-war rifle is making 1800 fps and IF its not sighted to a longer distance, which is possible, but more likely with rifles used in the west in the 19th c. We don't know anything about velocity or zero distances.  So if Murphy, for example, were shooting at Frasier at 300 yards he will need an aiming point someplace above Frasier unless he has marks down along the barrel someplace since with 100 or 110 yard zero the ball will be about 110" low.
With a 60 yard zero the ball is 121" low at 300. This is about three 1/8" tall front sight heights if holding down on the barrel for elevation.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline bob in the woods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #213 on: December 14, 2013, 03:46:41 AM »
Daryl, that technique must be a " Canadian" thing !  ;D    I'm surprised to hear so few have used it.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #214 on: December 14, 2013, 09:30:21 AM »
As I mentioned earlier, a RB shot aimed at an enemy's hat at 200 yards should drop the ball into the torso of the enemy.  I wouldn't care if it was a hit below the neck to the groin, as any solid hit in the torso will take an enemy out of action with a .45 - .52. cal. round ball.  That size RB normally just makes too big of a hole and lets out too much blood or air.   Even if it hits above the lungs, it is going to take out the use of a shoulder and the enemy can't shoot at you with a long gun with only one hand, unless at extremely close range. 

My apology for getting a little morbidly graphic, but this thread is about using Longrifles in a War.
Gus

Offline Daryl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15832
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #215 on: December 14, 2013, 11:38:59 PM »
I gotcha Bob, but Elmer, for much of his life and writing career was from Salmon Idaho- as least that's where I called him, and from where his correspondence to me was mailed.

Taylor's first 62 Hawken, had a bright wear spot on the barrel, just over 1/2 way down from leaning on the wooden bench while loading it at the Squamish Rod and Gun Club. When you held the rifle up to the shoulder, it appeared to be a thin white line.

He found that if he held that thin white line level with the top of his rear sight, and put the bead on the 325 yard target, he could hit that target just about every time  - with round ball and I think he was using about 160gr. to 180gr. 2F at that time about the mid 1970's.
Daryl

"a gun without hammers is like a spaniel without ears" King George V

Offline smylee grouch

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7907
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #216 on: December 15, 2013, 07:14:05 PM »
Dan, dont want to nit-pic but I thought 20 rods was 110 yards. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that a rod is 16&1/2 feet, can anyone verify that or maybe no one cares anyway since I'm nitpicking.

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #217 on: December 15, 2013, 08:57:01 PM »
Dan, dont want to nit-pic but I thought 20 rods was 110 yards. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that a rod is 16&1/2 feet, can anyone verify that or maybe no one cares anyway since I'm nitpicking.

You are correct. 

Offline Habu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #218 on: January 29, 2014, 05:58:50 AM »
Too many questions, and not much shooting looking for answers, so back in October 2013 I borrowed a rifle and did some shooting, finishing up on 26 January 2014.  Technical details will follow in the next post. 

First off, the rifle was a rather plain original Dickert (it reminds me of Kindig's #19).  It was re-converted and restored by an overly-enthusiastic "gunsmith" in 1976.  I had permission to shoot it, as long as I made no permanent changes other than to modify the touchhole liner and drill out the touch hole as needed to allow firing.  The bore would not pass a .490" round ball.

I used two lots of powder, that I'd had on hand for 20+ years but never fired in a rifle, so they were unknown quantities.  I settled on balls cast in an original mould marked only "44."  The lead was scrounged from the backstop at a local range.  I made a trip to the local purveyor of assorted fabrics (i.e., Goodwill) and purchased some linen (old table runner) of what I thought was probably an appropriate thickness, based on how it felt "in hand."  Lube was neatsfoot oil, mostly because I frequently use that as a lube. 

Initial load testing was done from a supported offhand position (I rested my left forearm on a fencepost).  Beginning with the first lot of powder, I shot ten-shot groups at 50 yards, increasing the powder change 10 grains each time.  Balls were placed on a strip of lubed patching, seated flush with the muzzle using the handle of my knife, then the patch was cut and the ball seated home using a loading rod I had on hand rather than the rod that accompanied the rifle. (This is pretty much my usual loading procedure.)  Limited testing was done with pre-cut square patches and pre-cut round patches, but no difference in group size or POI was noted. 

After watching groups shrink in size then begin opening up as the charge was increased, I returned to the charge that gave the smallest group and made a fixed charger.  I then shot that load at 100 yards, where I found that when using a center hold on a 6" paper plate, about 8 of 10 shots would hit the lower half of the plate (the other two were usually right below the lower edge of the plate).   Group sizes were typically about 6-7".   Using a second lot of powder, I worked up a load that hit to the same point of impact at 100 yards, and again made a fixed charger for that load.   (Group sizes with the second load were about the same as the first, but I didn't shoot enough groups to really be able to say for certain if one was better than the other.  The charges were certainly different.)

From there I began testing.  Ranges were 200 yards (supported offhand), 200 yards (prone),  300 yards prone, and 400 yards prone.  The targets used were copies of the IPSC silhouette, measuring 30" tall (including the "head"), 18" wide, with a "head" measuring about 6" square.  I put a white watch cap on the head to provide an aiming point similar to a powdered wig (and because I never liked that hat anyhow).   A shot was fired, then the barrel cleaned with tow on a worm, the bore dried, and the barrel allowed to cool before reloading and taking another shot.  On each day I shot, five shots were fired at each range, repeating a total of four days (total of 20 shots at each range).  The series was then repeated with the second load. 

In scoring the targets, I counted any hit on the silhouette as a "hit." 

Load #1 results:
200 yard supported offhand: 15 hits
200 yard prone: 16 hits
300 yard prone: 11 hits
400 yard prone: 3 hits

Load #2 results:
200 yard supported offhand: 16 hits
200 yard prone: 19 hits
300 yard prone: 9 hits
400 yard prone: 1 hits

I only hit that dang hat twice.

Conclusions:
After the tests, I spent a couple of afternoons shooting at targets a friend had placed at random distances from my shooting position, and from known distances at targets placed in front of an old (soon to be torn down) barn so I could see the POI of misses in the same plane as the target.  It was clear that out to 300 yards, the biggest obstacle to achieving hits was not range estimation but reading the wind.  Practice had made me familiar with how the target would look in relation to my front sight at various ranges; at unknown ranges (if I read the wind correctly) I averaged about a 60% hit ratio to 200 yards, and about 25% from 200-300 yards.  When shooting at the target in front of the old barn, I could see my shots strung out by the wind, often several feet or more, even at 200 yards.

While I am certain reading the wind was of even greater importance at 400 yards, I suspect the shooter/rifle/load combination was a more-significant barrier.  I was having to hold over too much for my eyes to be consistent. 

Offline Habu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #219 on: January 29, 2014, 05:59:16 AM »
Technical details

As stated, the rifle had previously been reconverted and "restored."  The restoration consisted largely of gluing various splits and breaks, and replacing some wood, then touching up the finish.  Unfortunately, the replacement wood was stained with chromium trioxide, and now has a greenish hue.  Equally bad, the "glue" used seems to have been some epoxy or fiberglass (possibly Accraglass). 

At some point in the history of the rifle, it was converted to percussion.  Possibly at this time, the barrel was shortened at the muzzle-the tip of the front sight is now flush with the muzzle.  Judging by the barrel tenons and pins, the barrel was never shortened at the breech.   I did shim the barrel at the tang and pins to elminate the play due to dried-out wood.  (I was a bit concerned about excess wear to the stock in these areas.)

Before shooting the rifle, I pulled the breechplug.  As the plug didn't quite seal the breech threads, I added a copper washer to the face of the plug.  When re-converted, the drum had been removed and a touch hole liner of sorts installed (possibly made from the old drum).  The touch hole had been drilled but filled with glue.  I dressed the liner flush with the inside of the barrel, and removed the glue from the touch hole.  The back inch of the bore showed extensive erosion, with the remainder of the bore lightly "frosted" as might be seen in a cartridge rifle fired with corrosive primers.  I slugged the bore and found it to mic out at a hair over .484".

The size of the touch hole hole was a concern for me, it would almost accept a 7/64" drill bit.  I decided to try it  before taking action.  Other than allowing occasional granules of powder to fall through, it posed no problems.  I did plug the hole with a feather before loading (but I probably would have anyhow, as this is a normal part of my loading routine). 

The front sight measured .119" in height, and .021" at the thickest.  The rear sight was approximately 9" from the breech, and had a notch that looked like a knife-nick. 

The lock had been re-converted, but the hammer angle was not correct and the frizzen was not hardened.  These parts were removed for the shooting test, with correctly-functioning replacements installed.  To my mind, the frizzen spring seemed rather weak but I did not replace it. 

The mould (marked "44") cast a ball averaging .469" (depending on where you measured it--not perfectly round), weighing (in my range-lead alloy) an average of 156 grains.  The balls were cast, then sprues were trimmed flush with a jackknife.    Patching was a piece of linen mic'ing .014" after absorbing neatsfoot oil overnight. 

For the main tests, two lots of powder were used.  Load #1 used Elephant FFg purchased in (I think) 1992.  No lot number is present on the cans.  The second load used Goex FFg, lot #30FE09B 03-86.   Elephant was used for load development; the load that was selected gave a average velocity of 1860 fps.  For these tests, the rifle was primed from the horn, using the Elephant FFg (the Goex seemed slower to ignite in the pan). 

The main tests were fired in a recently-harvested soybean field.  This is reasonably level ground, with a slight roll causing changes in elevation of about 5-6'.  All shots were fired with the shooter and target at "high points" on the ground; it was as close to level as I could get.  There was nothing behind that targets that rose above the level of the targets to use for an offset aiming point.  All range estimation and elevation was done "by eye" using the relative height of the front sight.

On various days, the temperatures ranged from about 20-80 degrees F.  Winds were the norm, but I tried to limit shooting to calmer days.  Humidity ranged from 50-80%.

The main difficulty I had with the rifle was with the sights.  The rear sight was too close to my eye for clear vision, and the front was a silver blade.  I hate silver sights in open country, so I smoked it every shot or two.  Trigger pull was about 4#--lighter would have been nice, but it wasn't bad.  No other real problems were noted with the rifle.  I suspect the size of the touchhole may have cost me some velocity. 

Questions or comments?

Offline Candle Snuffer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Traditional Muzzle Loading, Powder, Patch & Ball
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #220 on: January 29, 2014, 06:58:16 AM »
Good report Habu.  With your testing this has given us some insight.  Your hit ratio with both loads are equal to hits -vs- shots taken 45 of 80.  One could say that at '300 yards' it's a 50/50 proposition / chance of hitting one's target.  I consider that pretty good.

400 yards in my opinion is a chance shot.  I don't think anyone could (with any certainty) do much better with a patched round ball.

200 yards?  I think those were good results; 31 out of 40 and 35 out of 40.

Can hardly wait for decent weather to have at this.

Thanks for laying some ground work. :)
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 07:01:18 AM by Candle Snuffer »
Snuffer
Chadron Fur Trade Days

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #221 on: January 29, 2014, 07:51:47 AM »
Habu,

First, Thank You for such a determined effort and for the way you diligently tried to emulate what a period Rifleman would have done.  I also very much appreciate the way you recorded the manner in which you did these things.  Oh, your 200 yard supported Offhand shooting at 200 yards produced some very impressive results!!  GOOD shooting!!

Yes, I do have some questions now and probably more later on.

1.   Do you think the bore condition caused the rifle to be less accurate than it would have been when newer?    It sounds like the corrosion may have caused ball/patch seating at the chamber to be less uniform and possibly influencing accuracy than when the barrel was newer, perhaps? 

2.   What did you use as aiming points at 200 through 400 yards for each range?  Did you hold the front sight blade higher over the top of the rear sight at different ranges?    Did you look over the Rear Sight at longer ranges?   Did you estimate drop at the different ranges and just tried to hold over that amount? 

Now some comments.

What I believe you did so well was closely emulate the maximum accuracy of a period Longrifle, WITH the caveat that better bore condition (and possibly a tighter original bedding of the barrel?)  MAY have given slightly better accuracy. 

In combat, one would not have been able to clean, dry and allow the bore to cool between shots.  This is not meant to be critical of the test, but rather just stating the difference between testing such as this and actual combat shooting. 

PLEASE don’t think I’m criticizing your accuracy at 400 yards, because your tests in the most accurate way possible for rifle accuracy, pretty clearly show it would have been extremely unlikely to hit an enemy soldier at 400 yards even on the very first shot from a clean barrel.  This did not surprise me at all. 

Your 300 yard shooting in the most accurate way possible to shoot the rifle, without the detrimental conditions of combat, averaged 50 percent and that’s pretty darn good shooting. 

What one cannot emulate is the detrimental effect of “combat stress” from enemies shooting at one while trying to make accurate shots; I.E. Adrenaline surge, lack of sleep, other forms of physical and psychological fatigue, all too often poor diet on military campaign, and other things that would have kept a Rifleman from making the most accurate shot/s the rifle was capable of doing.  I honestly don't know how to factor that into the equation, but any of these things would have caused the Rifleman to be less accurate to far less accurate even at 200 yards let alone 300 or 400. 

Once again, Thank You for having done these tests and sharing the results with us!!
Gus

Offline Habu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #222 on: January 29, 2014, 10:12:31 AM »
Snuff, the weather ain't that bad.  :D 

Artificer:
#1.  I suspect the bore condition may have been a slight issue, but not much.  Except for the breech area, the Dickert bore wasn't really "rough," just not "smooth."  It would have been more of a factor if shooting jacketed bullets, but with a "loose" patched ball like this, it was no problem to smoothly seat the ball.  The patched ball never touched the rough area at the breech, that was filled with powder.  I think the sights were much more of an issue for me; with the right sights for the shooter, I suspect I could have reduced the group size. 

#2. The 200 yard sight picture had the top of the sight blade crowning over the rear sight notch.  Um, kinda like this: -o-.  The 300 yard sight picture had the rear tip of the front sight touching the top of the rear sight notch.   The 400 yard sight picture was taken by lining up the front and rear sights, then elevating the muzzle so there was an amount of barrel showing roughly equal to 1 1/2 times the height of the front sight.  In each case, I tried to center the blade on the white hat.  Without something other than sky in the background, it was difficult to consistently estimate the amount of elevation.   

The bore was cleaned between shots to maintain consistency in the test, and to simulate conditions for a "first shot" from a clean bore.   

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #223 on: January 29, 2014, 05:56:17 PM »
Dan, dont want to nit-pic but I thought 20 rods was 110 yards. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that a rod is 16&1/2 feet, can anyone verify that or maybe no one cares anyway since I'm nitpicking.

You are correct. 

Yeah, I blew the math. Thanks for the correction.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Rifle Accuracy 1776
« Reply #224 on: January 29, 2014, 07:20:27 PM »
Outstanding Habu.
50% at 300 is about all one could expect barring every thing being "ideal" for accurate shooting, which is not reality.
As you point out wind's effect of the RB is far more than most people would expect.
It will also cause errors in the vertical  though it does not seem to effect slow twists as much as it will a 22LR at 200 yards for example. This cartridge will do some really strange things in the wind.

In shooting paper at 200 with a 54 RB I found that with a board clamped to a pickup bumper as a rest, seated with no really discernible wind I could keep 5 shots in about 6" with a TANG SIGHT adjusted for the range.  However, ANY wind even a slight breeze would blow the group. So I would get out at daylight and shoot during the calm period we often have just after sun up.
The base accuracy is there its the sights, the wind and drop that really gum up the works. The fact that your accuracy loads were in the 1800 fps range is not a surprise either. I have never had good luck with loads under 1600 or so and the rifle I shot at 200 with the tang sight likes over 1900.
Shooting prone unsupported at 285 yards with a modern rifle, swiss powder but with about 5 ft of wind drift I got one hit in three on a "bad guy" silhouette. This with open barrel sights and holding upwind at the top of a small tree upwind of the target. If the man was mounted one shot would have killed or disabled his horse, one was a wide miss. I would also point out that at this distance the 495 ball did not create much dust signature. Since I had never shot this rifle at this distance I had to shoot off to one side about 20 yards to a smooth bare area to get a holdover. The hillside the target was on would produce no visible bullet strike.

We also have to remember that the bores of rifles used for sometime in service may not be perfect. So I think your testing is outstanding and the results are very "real world". That it was done with a period rifle is just icing on the cake.

Thank you, again.

Now the questions. What is the twist in the original barrel? How did the balls start? Hard-easy? Did the lands imprint on the ball at all?
Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine