Author Topic: Accuracy  (Read 19458 times)

timM

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2009, 08:35:31 PM »
Mr. Chapmans,............Outstanding!

Frizzen,........This target and the previous pistol target you posted Outstanding!

These two 100 yard targets were shot yesterday morning with my favorite .40 off hand flint rifle.  I cobbled together a pair of sights that might answer on some 200 yard shooting (Bomar sight picture) these two targets reflect my tweaking the sights preparatory to working on some two hundred yard shooting.

Rifle is a Tennessee Poor boy FS with a Green Mountain 13/16" .40 barrel and a Mr. Chambers large Siler flintlock.  The load chain consists of .395 swedged, weighted and picked balls and 45 garins of Goex 3 F with a .010 linen spit patch and a consistant damp patch pulled between shots.  The second target was the second target shot after an adjustment.  Off the bags at 100 yards with a 6 oclock hold. tim





« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 08:36:39 PM by timM »

chapmans

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2009, 02:59:10 AM »
Here is my 100 yd record target, the 9 was my first shot, I moved the sight and shot the other 4, the load was 85 gr ffg swiss with a .495 swaged and .020 teflon patch. It took the full 45 minute relay to finish the target because of the wind conditions.



  Steve C

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2009, 01:23:08 AM »
I am curious about the teflon patches.  Seeing them used in a couple of good targets, don't know anything about them.

DP

chapmans

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2009, 03:19:21 AM »
The teflon patch I use is .020," thick but I've never measured it, thats the size I buy. It is Sunforger sailboat canvas that has been sprayed with Teflon, I don't use any other lube with it except I was taught to lick the unsprayed side then load teflon side to the muzzle. It has improved groups in any gun I've ever shot it in. I only use it in bench and x-stix matches and last fall I used it in my aggs at Friendship in offhand, I shot 5 aggs and placed in all 5 and also was moved up to Master. I have some of the material that has not been sprayed and thought I would test it with different lubes, who knows maybe it's the cloth and not the teflon.
   Regards, Steve Chapman

Offline Frizzen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • Phil Piburn
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2009, 04:22:14 AM »
Mine is .022 size pillow ticking. Got it from Francis S. who lived in Flordia a good friend of mine.
He passed away several years ago. In the mid 1970's I used to buy the liquid Teflon from Dupont
and spray it myself. Think it cost about 45.00 a quart and I remember getting about 15 yds. from
a quart. You sure don't want to get any in your lungs, very bad stuff.
                                                                                                                 Phil P
The Pistol Shooter

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12577
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2009, 07:12:33 AM »
My congratulations to those who have posted their targets.  ...all very nice shooting, and what we all strive for.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2009, 01:43:31 PM »
Aged myself again. Now they wisely use 5 bull targets at 50 yards and 2 bull at 100.  Got involved in another discussion on another thread about bench shooting and have bench shooters on this one.   Bench shooters are the people that have developed the accuracy techniques that we use today even in off hand rifles.  I noticed that the targets were shot with swaged ball and a very heavy patch.  Does the Teflon aid in ease of loading to permit tighter combinations?  Also what are the scores and targets like for the more unlimited bench shooters?  I have a book dated 1973 that recommends the loading you use as to tightness, except they used cast ball weighed and sorted and did not have Teflon.  Personally I feel that we have wrung about as much out of a roundball at 100 yards as we are going too.  The limitations I have seen in your groups is likely the sights.

DP

chapmans

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2009, 03:49:28 PM »
  I used to use Web Terry's teflon patch, I always felt his was the best but due to age and health problems he no longer is able to come to Friendship anymore. He did tell me one time that he thought the teflon patch was being wasted when shooting offhand, he told me to get some br2 moly and coat my patches laying it on a piece of glass or plexiglass and spread it on with a wide putty knife, I've not tried it yet but I plan on it someday. I do think shooting is a combination of things, equipment, skill, technique, but most of all you have to have confidence, if you don't have confidence it doesn't matter how good your equempment is you won't do well, so if the teflon gives you that confidence I say use it. I will say when I am shooting in big matches I will use it but at local clubs and practice I will use my denim or drill.
   Steve Chapman

roundball

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2009, 03:50:11 PM »
Now.....would Dan'l have carried his Teflon patches in the patch box or his pouch?
 ;D

chapmans

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2009, 05:36:14 PM »
Probably the same place he keeps his marbles and hard rubber balls!

roundball

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2009, 05:37:07 PM »
 ;D

Can't wait for that new .58cal Early Virginia to get here...first couple hundred shots to break it in will be .565" x 68grn PRMs (Patched Round Marbles)...then I'll get serious and start developing a deer hunting load with Hornady .570s

« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 05:41:51 PM by roundball »

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2009, 02:36:41 AM »
Ohhh - getting serious right off the bat with glass - that's good!   I'll bet they'd be good for walkaround gopher pelters.

I am delighted you're getting that rifle, Roundball.

Hope it fulfills your expectations to the tee.

roundball

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2009, 06:04:34 AM »
Ohhh - getting serious right off the bat with glass - that's good!   I'll bet they'd be good for walkaround gopher pelters.

Well, knowing the length of this rifle, it's shape and fit, will all be markedly different from the T/C Hawkens I've shot for years...I'm planning on the fact that I'll want a few range trips to get completely used to the feel of it, and develop a comfortable 'hold' to the point where it's second nature...get used to the triggers, the lock, etc.

I can do that just plinking a couple hundred penney apiece marbles at 25yds, as easy as I can wasting $50 worth of Hornady .570's...then I can break out the Hornady's, settle on a deer load, get the sight filed right, etc.
(I've ordered a 2nd front sight to have in case I screw up the first one)
 ;)   

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2009, 06:41:39 AM »
I carry a couple 'spares' in my 'tool' bag. Came in handy last day at the range with the change to 'summer' loads.  I've a picture of 4 groups I need to photograph and post- perhaps another thread, but since this one deals with accuracy - that's what will be discussed.

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2009, 07:17:26 PM »
One of the things that could be another whole thread but fits here is the popularity of certain mid size bores, 45-54.  Obviously they hold up better at longer ranges than the little and kick less than the big ones, which I question as a factor in some of the heavier 14 pound guns.  Most of the "rules of thumb" apply to them, such as starting loads of 1/2 the ball weight, etc.  I ahve already aged myself as the books I have for references mention them as the most popular for X sticks and light bench.  They used to like slow twist barrels and hotter loads to fight the wind.  Makes me wonder if there isn't a balance with available powders that make them a good choice.  A 140 grain load in a 58 is not as fat as a 90 grain in a 50.

DP

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2009, 09:21:02 PM »
This post deals with accuracy.  Several, maybe many times, we've seen posted, that since a person is shooting offhand,  guilt edge accuracy is not required.  Well, I beg to differ - the tighter the rifle will shoot off the bags, the better will be the offhand group.  The day I shot this was very cold, snowed, hailed, windy shifting, blowing, then a downpour which was rough on targets, let alone the shooting - but - it shows something important related to the above statement about accuracy.
The centre group with that particular load printed a group off the bags measuring .750" on centres for 5 shots. The same load shot offhand went 1.250".

The top right group with it's load, shot off the bags measured 1.300" almost double the size, yet the offhand group with that load spread to 3.750".

As I noted,t he conditions of shooting was poor, but the 'trend' is clear. This is only one test and therefore is statistically unsound- but - I believe the results to be a fair representation. The offhand groups were shot one after the other, only the load was changed, not the time of shooting.


Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5316
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2009, 10:29:26 PM »
I agree!  There is no such thing as "too much accuracy" or even "accurate enough".  My experience also bears this out.  Though many rifles are more accurate than their owners can take advantage of, even mediocre shots benefit from very accurate rifles.  If they won't do it from the bench, they won't do it from off-hand.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

timM

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2009, 05:22:34 AM »
Amen Daryl, Flinter !

The secret to good shooting is to start with an “accurate” consistent rifle!   The racers edge, guaranteed.

Minimizing  mechanical alibi's is the starting place for any good shooting.  Muzzle loaders in particular have a number of variables that need to be overcome in order to arrive at precision.  Beyond  mechanics and load chain remains the external conditions (range, weather, light & human element), these are the  variables the shooter should concentrate on defeating.   tim
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 05:25:31 AM by timM »

Candle Snuffer

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2009, 05:51:27 AM »
Amen Daryl, Flinter !

The secret to good shooting is to start with an “accurate” consistent rifle!   The racers edge, guaranteed.

Minimizing  mechanical alibi's is the starting place for any good shooting.  Muzzle loaders in particular have a number of variables that need to be overcome in order to arrive at precision.  Beyond  mechanics and load chain remains the external conditions (range, weather, light & human element), these are the  variables the shooter should concentrate on defeating.   tim

Agree completely!

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2009, 05:24:03 PM »
Incidentally, I found that spit lubed patches shot identically to the windshield washer fluid/couple squirts of Irish Spring body soap (had to use the stuff for something :D).

I found that the front cavity of my DC .400" mould, which casts a .392" x .400" ball, opens groups double, while the .400" x .400" balls shoot slightly better than the .395" balls.  The oblong-shaped balls showed excellent accuracy for some shots but had fliers - needs more testing - or not - best just to remelt them & cast more good balls. 

In perusing all my targets from the day, I see that reducing the patch thickness down to .016" still produced round groups but - the accuracy was about 3 times wider -  but showed no fliers - round groups.  Patches were scorched brown, stiff and dry as a bone when picked up, yet thicker patches still maintained some lube and were in perfect shape for reuse if desired. One would have to be careful about aligning the ball perfectly though, as due to the higher pressures generated by the small bore size, the denim was frayed down to the fall sealing 'zone' by the muzzleblast.  This is normal.  Shooting large balls with thinner patches, or smaller balls with thicker patches in the .58, showed perfect patches right to the outside, due to low pressure - much less than 1/2 as much, actually, according to Lyman.

Using the .395" 'round' balls and increasing the patch thickness from .016" to .018" to .020" to .0215", the groups shrank bit by bit and was best with the heaviest patch.  I shot no oils at all, as I've run out of both Hoppe's & LHValley. I noticed no really noticeable changes in loading, except spit seemed minutely slicker than the water/soap lube.  I do know that LHV and Hoppe's seem just a tad more slippery than spit, so there that is - whatever it means. All load easily.

I had to change front sights, as the water based lubes shoot about 2" lower than LHV or Hoppe's. No big deal - it was in my shooting bag's tool kit.  I'm looking forward to the Trail this coming Sunday as this little rifle, now my favourite, is grouping about 1/2 size to what it has on the last few trails where I missed one or two targets. ;D ;D

 

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5316
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2009, 08:33:26 PM »
Interesting observations.  I use to use various materials that were invariably "thin".  Got lots of burn throughs.  Went to thicker pillow ticking and fired patches are still wet and unburned & uncut. 
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2009, 08:55:52 PM »
I agree- what I found most interesting, was the patches from .018" through the .0215" denim, all sealed well, were unscorched and still wet, but going thicker steadily increased accuracy.  This was when using the .395" balls. The .400", even though larger yet in diameter, shots even better with the same patches.

I am going to test the .400's next time, reducing patch thickness all the way down to .013" to see what happens.  By the numbers, even the .013" should seal with .003" compression each side in that bore, yet the heaviest material tested, .0215" having .0115 compression per side, gave better accurcy than the thinner patches, but also well compressed and sealing .018" and .020". 

Ahhh- testing for the very best accuracy - it's never finished.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 06:04:47 PM by Daryl »

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5316
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2009, 09:03:40 PM »
This is why I'm anxious to try out denim patches.  Got some old jeans & will discard the worn areas & cut patches from the heavier material. 
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2009, 06:41:57 PM »
Spot-on-   the backs of the legs and lower frontal leg areas seems about all that's useable.  I just checked a few of the swatches of patching I used in the test, with the calipers - normally .0035" to .004" thicker than when measured with the mic.

Offline hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5316
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Accuracy
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2009, 06:52:09 PM »
I don't have a mic, just a caliper.  When I measure I use pretty firm pressure, though.  How close you think this would be to mic measurement?
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.