54 cal smoothbore accuracy/whats the best they can do

[northmn]

They did not use "fine shot"  neccessarily.  Swan shot was a shot size developed for killing swans and was about BB size more or less and tear dropped shapped.  It was made by pouring lead into water through a screen at about man height.  Some claimed the weight forward design of the teardrops was such that they did not pattern too bad.  I played around with BB shot in a 20 gauge fowler and found it to be very versatile in that it really didn't tear up smaller game like squirrels and grouse.  While I had not shot a deer with it, at close range it would work with a head shot or up very close even behind the shoulder.  
 Ned Roberts used double barrel MLS such that they had two shots.  As stated each has their purpose.  My son claims that Iraqis have found that out in urban warfare from Marines carrying pump shotguns.  Considering the game available in my neck of the woods in the early days, a smoothbore would have been more efficient.  As to a 40 yard limitation, in some of the brush we have that is no big deal.  While I enjoy waiting on fields and taking longer shots if needed, for some of my deer stands 25 yards would be about the extent of the shot.  Baiting bear is about the only way they get them and 15 is more like it.  Both bear and deer get taken by modern day shooters using NW trade gun recreations.

DP  

[James Rogers]

From a historic perspective, real swan shot is ROUND. Drop shot has tails.

I cant count how many deer I have taken with a shotgun. I have taken proably 6 or seven with a rifle and it was a flintlock.
Up until a couple of years ago my county was shotgun only. 

[Dphariss]

 3/4 of the shot in the 1733 contract was small shot, "duck", "pigeon (Royal) and 1/2 Royal".
I have no idea how large "bustard" shot is but it made up the balance. Swan and buckshot was not listed unless "bustard" falls into this class. I suspect that duck and pigeon must be like 4s or 6s???
Where I live hunting public land a tree stand is useless assuming you have a tree to put it in, marginal every where else. We can't bait bears either. Would make bear hunting WAY easier.
As previously stated a lot of this is location.
I still think that what I call "the cult of the smoothbore" has to use slanted thinking to make them more useful to people on limited income than the rifle. The only place they shine is if shooting flying targets or in situations where large numbers 2-3 can be killed with one shot. Hunting solitary animals like squirrels, unless you shoot nests, or rabbits the shotgun simply costs too much to shoot. On big game the rifle is better since you can take longer shots.
This coupled with historical documentation that the rifle used less ammunition in native hands (1764 comments in this hurting trade) is consistently ignored in the stampede to gush over how wonderful the smoothbore is.
It is a multipurpose gun. But as with many such things it is a *compromise* that really only excels if hunting birds. A larger bore is needed to make use of shot and with a solid ball its not really any better than a 50-54 caliber rifle in some areas its no better than a 45. Thus you pay 1.5 to 3 times in lead alone. If you hunt moose or elk 54 is better, if you hunt only deer a 45 will do to 100 yards or so. I once killed three grouse with a 50 caliber rifle using *20 gr of powder* and a RB. This cost 60 grains of powder and  531 grains of lead. Now if you flock shot them, assuming they bunched for you you could probably duplicate or do a little better with shot gun but to me its a dead heat. If they don't bunch then you could shoot  more powder and lead.
My point is this. When "the big game was killed off" why didn't everyone switch to shotguns?? If they are so much better for small game why did the small more "squirrel rifle" evolve??
It came about because if the hunter can shoot worth a @!*% the small rifle especially is FAR cheaper for small game hunting. Its just a fact. I used to shoot rabbits with a 32 (O buck) and  9mm Luger case as a powder measure, 12-15 grains as I recall. Rabbits hiding in bushes didn't have a chance. This gave me about 140 shots per pound of lead and 466 charges from a pound of powder. It will kill larger animals, the size of a fox to about 150 yards with 30-35 grains of powder. Or deer a ranges at least as far as a smoothbore can be used. Even shooting squirrels with a 50-54 is cheaper than with the typical 58-62 trade gun.

Dan

[James Rogers]

Darn Dan,
I thought you were pro-rifle but you seem to be more anti-smoothbore. Ha Ha

I love fowling guns but I am not going to say it's as good as a rifle for rifle type applications. On the other hand, I am also not going to hunt quail with a rifle.  

[Dphariss]

Darn Dan,
I thought you were pro-rifle but you seem to be more anti-smoothbore. Ha Ha

I love fowling guns but I am not going to say it's as good as a rifle for rifle type applications. On the other hand, I am also not going to hunt quail with a rifle.  

I know what you are saying. I have hunted and trapped my entire life. But I seldom hunt just for the fun of it. I have no interest at all in shooting waterfowl for example. I think I have only shot at 1-2 in my entire life. I did kill a Wood Duck with my perc double back about 1967 or so. Only one I remember shooting at.
My idea of hunting a duck or goose (I hate eating either one BTW) would be to crawl up on a gravel bar full of them and head shoot one with my pistol or rifle. But since I don't eat them I just like looking at them.
I was disappointed to note that its now (heck maybe its always been?)illegal to shoot game birds with a rifle or pistol in MT. I have had a supper or two when away from camp by shooting a grouse with my pistol, flintlock or otherwise. While I have killed 20 or so grouse I suppose I have only killed one with a shotgun, the offending tradegun I have described. The funny part is that it was not the one I had picked and fired on. This bird swerved up and one of his mates swerved down into the shot charge. While I hunted with this thing fairly extensively this was the only thing I killed with it and it was not the one I was aiming for.

I understand people wanting to shoot and hunt with them. I just get a little tweeked with the "more practical" thing comes up. To me they are just the opposite. For *all around use* they cost more to shoot and accomplish little for the extra spent. Unless hunting birds.

Dan

[roundball]

was wondering,how much accuracy can i expect

The question was simply about accuracy in a smoothbore...

[rich pierce]

It is interesting to note that when big game became rarer in the east, rifle calibers became small.  So folks were using rifles for small game, squirrels, rabbits etc.

In colonial and Federal periods it was easy to make a cheap smoothbore and not so easy to make a cheap rifle, so that is a big reason why trade guns were popular.  Smoothbores would also fulfill militia requirements.  And if guns were to receive very rough treatment and not last too long (living in canoes, on horseback, etc., used in warfare) then cheap mattered.  I don't have the research ability to figure out what it would cost to purchase a smoothbore trade gun and shoot it 1000 times versus a riflegun of 50-54 caliber.  But one shot a day could be a lot and 1000 shots could be 3 years or more of use, depending on the situation (I am not talking about professional hunters or soldiers drilling, b ut an average native or frontiersman).

Lewis and Clark decided the rifle was the best option in wide open country and they needed to consider cost in powder and lead (carrying it).

I do love smoothbores for versatility and I do like to shoot flying birds (shoot at them).  I shot some deer growing up with slugs as rifles were not allowed.  Just had to limit everything to 60, maybe 70 yards, which was not a problem.  Would we have had better success with a rifle?  Yes, and as soon as they alllowed muzzleloading rifles, we did.

[northmn]

Part of how much accuracy you can expect was mentioned as to whether they have sights, as in smooth rifles, and also to some extent the differences in ignition.  My Brown Bess was a very reliable weapon, it had a large lock that set off a very impressive shower of sparks and worked well with 2f priming.  It was also very slow.  Many of the Fowler's had finer locks and faster ignition.  Two types of accuracy, the accuracy of the weapon and ability of the shooter.  Some weapons were made rather difficult to shoot.  The Natives for instance complained that the NW Gun was too straight and originals were found with carved out stocks to compensate.  Some exact repos today are also made that way.
In the great lakes area a military unit was developed during the French and Indian war whose techniques are still studied today by special forces.  Roger Rangers never used a rifle.  Their loads, according to my sources, were buck shot, buck and ball, and ball.  They also had swivel guns mounted on the York boats that were loaded with shot to discourage any Natives from coming out in canoes to attack them. 
According to one price list I saw a smoothbore would cost about $5.00 and a rifle about $15.00.  A factor also to consider is that the rifles were physically heavy weapons.  Another is that a rifle is a specialized weapon and best used in skilled hands.  We have today, probably better shots than existed in the frontier, as we have the ability to shoot more.  I grew up on  a BB gun then a 22 before going to a larger rifle.  That just was not available back then.  Also comparatively speaking, ammunition is much cheaper today so we shoot more.  When I shot bullseye competition, I really only shot against about 4-5 other shooters.  There might be over 30 registered, but most were not competitive.  At 100 yards some had trouble hitting the paper.  (No smoothbore would have stood up in that competition, as it would not have had the accuracy)  My point is that in many cases it wouldn't matter much to some users if the gun were rifled or not as they just could not shoot that well.   If ranges are close most smoothbores were lighter in weight to lug around and worked as well.  As an example, one of the proportions I read for a trade rifle was a 50 cal 35 inch 1 3/16 inch barrel.  I would definitely want a horse to carry that one with.  On a final note many of the shot charges were not all that heavy, some as light as one half ounce, equivalent to a 54 RB. As I mentioned the 410 was real popular for grouse when I was younger for pot shooting them in the head, often out of a car.  As to the shot sizes, that likely varied.  Most of my references stated that shot was more or less home made.  Real fine shot was not popular in the earlier days like today.  Hinton claimed that #3 was popular for ducks in the late 1800's.

DP

[Dphariss]

It is interesting to note that when big game became rarer in the east, rifle calibers became small.  So folks were using rifles for small game, squirrels, rabbits etc.

In colonial and Federal periods it was easy to make a cheap smoothbore and not so easy to make a cheap rifle, so that is a big reason why trade guns were popular.  Smoothbores would also fulfill militia requirements.  And if guns were to receive very rough treatment and not last too long (living in canoes, on horseback, etc., used in warfare) then cheap mattered.  I don't have the research ability to figure out what it would cost to purchase a smoothbore trade gun and shoot it 1000 times versus a riflegun of 50-54 caliber.  But one shot a day could be a lot and 1000 shots could be 3 years or more of use, depending on the situation (I am not talking about professional hunters or soldiers drilling, b ut an average native or frontiersman).

Lewis and Clark decided the rifle was the best option in wide open country and they needed to consider cost in powder and lead (carrying it).

I do love smoothbores for versatility and I do like to shoot flying birds (shoot at them).  I shot some deer growing up with slugs as rifles were not allowed.  Just had to limit everything to 60, maybe 70 yards, which was not a problem.  Would we have had better success with a rifle?  Yes, and as soon as they alllowed muzzleloading rifles, we did.

The use of a trade musket as a Militia arm would depend on if they required the musket to use regulation ball sizes or not.
In "British Military Flintlock Rifles" By Bailey pg. 76 we find from a "1757 List of Indian Goods at Rock Creek belonging to the Ohio Company with their prices at first cost in London [indicating their point of origin:]"

"Abt 1 dozen 4 ft square [octagonal; a common mistake] barrl'd Guns very small Bores-best Iron mounted and stocked like Rifhells, a Bullet Mould... 27/6

Abt 1 dozen Rifhells 4 ft barrels, best iron - Bullet mould 41/6."

Rifles seemed to have ran about ₤4-6 though the less popular low end rifles were around ₤2.10.0 into the 1780s and higher end rifles ran as high as 9 or even more. It gives the prices of the rifles the Girty brothers obtained in late 1775 and early 1776 which were apparently of better grade costing ₤6 to 8.1.0.
Since its about rifles there is little on smoothbore pricing though he notes that the most expensive fowling pieces, chiefs guns, were 40/ when the lowest grade rifle was 50/.
For a student of early American firearms chapter 6 alone is worth the price of the book.
Fleeting mentions of brass barreled rifles etc.
I went to http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/currency.html
to figure out the 27/6-41/6 prices. Which seems to be  ₤1.7.6 and ₤2.6.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Part of how much accuracy you can expect was mentioned as to whether they have sights, as in smooth rifles, and also to some extent the differences in ignition.  My Brown Bess was a very reliable weapon, it had a large lock that set off a very impressive shower of sparks and worked well with 2f priming.  It was also very slow.  Many of the Fowler's had finer locks and faster ignition.  Two types of accuracy, the accuracy of the weapon and ability of the shooter.  Some weapons were made rather difficult to shoot.  The Natives for instance complained that the NW Gun was too straight and originals were found with carved out stocks to compensate.  Some exact repos today are also made that way.
In the great lakes area a military unit was developed during the French and Indian war whose techniques are still studied today by special forces.  Roger Rangers never used a rifle.  Their loads, according to my sources, were buck shot, buck and ball, and ball.  They also had swivel guns mounted on the York boats that were loaded with shot to discourage any Natives from coming out in canoes to attack them. 
According to one price list I saw a smoothbore would cost about $5.00 and a rifle about $15.00.  A factor also to consider is that the rifles were physically heavy weapons.  Another is that a rifle is a specialized weapon and best used in skilled hands.  We have today, probably better shots than existed in the frontier, as we have the ability to shoot more.  I grew up on  a BB gun then a 22 before going to a larger rifle.  That just was not available back then.  Also comparatively speaking, ammunition is much cheaper today so we shoot more.  When I shot bullseye competition, I really only shot against about 4-5 other shooters.  There might be over 30 registered, but most were not competitive.  At 100 yards some had trouble hitting the paper.  (No smoothbore would have stood up in that competition, as it would not have had the accuracy)  My point is that in many cases it wouldn't matter much to some users if the gun were rifled or not as they just could not shoot that well.   If ranges are close most smoothbores were lighter in weight to lug around and worked as well.  As an example, one of the proportions I read for a trade rifle was a 50 cal 35 inch 1 3/16 inch barrel.  I would definitely want a horse to carry that one with.  On a final note many of the shot charges were not all that heavy, some as light as one half ounce, equivalent to a 54 RB. As I mentioned the 410 was real popular for grouse when I was younger for pot shooting them in the head, often out of a car.  As to the shot sizes, that likely varied.  Most of my references stated that shot was more or less home made.  Real fine shot was not popular in the earlier days like today.  Hinton claimed that #3 was popular for ducks in the late 1800's.

DP

From Bailey:
"...However, since few facts have been printed about the early possession of rifles by the indians, this material has been included to indicate how prevalent they were, how familiar the Indians were with their use and their worth,..."
When you speak of Rogers Rangers you are speaking of a unit in the British Military and the wisdom of the time was smoothbore musket though the British military started looking seriously at rifles in the 1740s and apparently there were "issue" rifles with Braddock. Rogers is still studied but not because he used a musket, rather because his tactics are still applicable. Rogers counterpart in the American Revolution was rifle armed for the most part. Morgan for example.

And yes the accuracy of the shooter is a factor.

Dan

[northmn]

was wondering,how much accuracy can i expect

The question was simply about accuracy in a smoothbore...

I never really bench rested my big bores like the Bess because they shot about a 1 1/4 ounce ball and hurt due to the cheek piece.  Also I tended to sight in rifles or smooth bores offhand as they can shoot differently off a bench than from offhand.  If you were good with a smooth bore you could likely win an occasional prize at a novelty type primitive shoot where you score one shot.  You would not be able to compete head on with rifles in a bullseye match.  For deer I always considered mine about a 50 to 75 yard gun, closer to 50 at most.  Obviously if you followed some of the discussion you would notice that for smaller stuff I used shot.  A 54 would handle anything between 1/2 ounce and 1 ounce fairly well, depending on range.  for a variety of reasons I decided to put a smooth rifle project on hold and went instead with a 12 gauge.  Were I to hunt deer with the 12, I would rig a rear sight for it.
Dan you mention Morgans riflemen.  I looked up the battle of Saratoga.  Did your references state what happened to them when they ran into a unit of British Grenadiers?

DP

[tg]

I would expect to get at least a 4-5" group at 50 yds off a rest with a smoothbore or get a different smoothbore I have had 5 and all have done this well all were different makes, offhand groups will depend on the shooter, as to the mention of "Bustard" I think itwas a medium sized type of Crane if I recall.....lets try and put the tear drop Swan shot myth to rest this shot came from a round mould.

[Daryl]

I have seen pictures of moulds listed as being for casting Swan Shot. Seems to me Greener's Book has a picture of one as well.  Coming from a mould, of course, they are round - but only if the sprue is removed?

[northmn]

My memory could be better, but shot towers were found to eliminate the tear drop shape of some of the homemade shot poured through a screen at human height.  It was the home made I am referring to.  I have also noticed that some of the terminology used by some of the writers in the past may have been a little off too. My interest is how big were the pellets?  While I have heard of cast pellets, I have also heard of other methods of making shot including shaving lead and beating it sort of round.  Cast pellets would be more consistant, as some of the other methods would have yielded an interesting mixture of sizes.  Those that made it through a screen also needed to be pretty steady as it required a little practice to master.  Shot sizes like 7 1/2 we use today is fairly recent as making the stuff any other way required too much work for the amount of shot.  Imagine casting 350 pellets to get an ounce of shot.
DP

[swordmanjohn]

Are conical bullets in a smoothbore more accurate? I dont know if I should compare my shotgun (improved cylinder ) to a ML smoothbore but this gun was extremely accurate to the point of hitting coke cans at 100 yards free hand ...and after knocking them over, hitting the bottom part of the can (my younger years of shooting). Perhaps due to faster ignition or modern powder ,but it still was a smoothbore! I much rather shoot ML rifles.

[tg]

"but only if the sprue is removed?'

Yeah, this would be the same with the various buck shot as well,  I suspect than any cast shot would have been de-sprued, the Swan shot being tear drop shaped likely comes from the teardrop shape when viewed sideways looks kind of like the body of a Swan and its long neck, there were likley some original home made lead dropplets that looked like that and an erroneous connection was made, if not then buck shot should look like a deer and Piegeon shot should look like a Piegeon and so forth.I have seen mention of Swan shot molds in two or three sources,the tadpole stuff is still being peddled as Swan shot by some but I did hear someone call it Swan drops a while back , now to me that would be something that resembles Swan @#$%/!!.

[Daryl]

I would imagine spad drops would look very much like goose drops - too long for a smoothie - 
 The tails would very likely be the sprues left on after casting, as I figured, but could be from being dropped at low altitude.  I would think that if this happened, the shot would likely not be even close to being round as it was the long drop that made it round.  Fropped formlow altitude would most likely deliver sviers of lead, streaks, etc. nothing remotely round. Just thinking out loud here, after only 2 beer.  Man I'm a cheap drunk. gotta blame the morphine. I worked hard today on the yard - torching weeks with the tiger torch & a 20 pound propane bottle - fun, but hot work.

[Dphariss]

My memory could be better, but shot towers were found to eliminate the tear drop shape of some of the homemade shot poured through a screen at human height.  It was the home made I am referring to.  I have also noticed that some of the terminology used by some of the writers in the past may have been a little off too. My interest is how big were the pellets?  While I have heard of cast pellets, I have also heard of other methods of making shot including shaving lead and beating it sort of round.  Cast pellets would be more consistant, as some of the other methods would have yielded an interesting mixture of sizes.  Those that made it through a screen also needed to be pretty steady as it required a little practice to master.  Shot sizes like 7 1/2 we use today is fairly recent as making the stuff any other way required too much work for the amount of shot.  Imagine casting 350 pellets to get an ounce of shot.
DP

But the shot tower was not invented until 1769. Prior to this virtually all shot (for our purposes here) was "Rupert shot" that was dropped only about 10" into water and was not completely round since it was still molten when it struck the water. It is not teardrop shaped but has a dimple that makes it more heart shaped in cross section.
According to T.M. Hamilton in "Colonial Frontier Guns" we have cut sheet then tumbled shot to circa 1665, Rupert to 1665 to 1769 and drop shot there after. But there must be a few years of lag time added here as well. Drop shot did not appear in the Americas in 1769 I am sure. Rupert probably hung on for at least a few years. He shows Rupert shot to about .215" and cast shot in larger sizes. The smallest Rupert was about 8-8 1/2 modern shot. This was from Michilimackinac
Rupert shot is found at every 18th century site he has been to according to Hamilton.
I have no idea what "Swan shot" was but Rupert at .215" (between T and F) would have been pretty deadly on any bird. I suspect this is likely the "Bustard" shot??? The buckshot as shown as found at Michilimackinac started at 35 caliber.
Track has this book in stock and its something everyone interested in guns on the Frontier should have.
Dan

[northmn]

Swan shot was shot used to kill swans, a very large bird that takes some killing.  Its is very likely that is was used to refer to a size of shot, like buckshot is usually over 30 caliber and used to kill deer (bucks).  How the shot was made has little to do with the terminology as does size. Which is why when earlier sources referred to swan shot they may have been referring to size.  If my memory serves, the home brew shot process was described in Muzzle Blasts.  It is not real practical to cast shot out of a mold, even a gang mold, as compared to other methods. Also you have the elimination of the sprue to contend with.  I tried making the shot as described and it is tricky but much faster.  Another factor is that moat American shooters bought lead and cast their own, whether ball or making shot.  The term drop shot was carried over into the 1900's and referred to pure lead shot as compared to todays alloyed shot.  Even dropped from a tower, drop shot is not noted for being round.  Thats one reason they started adding tin and antimony.  I have also heard of the use of beans, corn and other large seeds for small game use in the early days, whether true or not I would question either way.

DP

[Dphariss]

Are conical bullets in a smoothbore more accurate? I dont know if I should compare my shotgun (improved cylinder ) to a ML smoothbore but this gun was extremely accurate to the point of hitting coke cans at 100 yards free hand ...and after knocking them over, hitting the bottom part of the can (my younger years of shooting). Perhaps due to faster ignition or modern powder ,but it still was a smoothbore! I much rather shoot ML rifles.

The typical shotgun slug flies like a dart.
Anytime one speaks of accuracy he must shoot groups on paper. Some shotguns will shoot certain loads with surprising accuracy. But this generally requires rifle sights.
The "dart" idea is a good one. The Abrams tank has a smoothbore gun and shoot "darts".

Dan

[tg]

" Which is why when earlier sources referred to swan shot they may have been referring to size. '

no doubt this was the way shot was described kind of matching the game to the size needed, swan and buck shot were always a cast shot in the past from everything I have seen the home made stuff was likley around in the past but most frontier folks would not likley have dropped a lot of different sizes in the method that makes the tadpoles, early on 1700 there was a variety of shot being sent over by the French. Swan was probably about the smallest molded shot I think it is .23 +/- the main point here  is not to confuse whatever the end result of a variety of methods of dropping lead into water  with Swan shot.

[northmn]

Again you are assuming shot was purchased as is today.  Likely was by many.  The references I had heard for making shot may have been for the western fur trade or backwoods method.  There they bought powder and they bought lead.  They did not buy shot.  Dpharsis reference to shot being included in trade goods makes me think the natives may have bought shot.  Also with the trade gun almost a standard bore they may have wanted precast ball.  The finding of a few molds proves that a few people cast shot.  It does not make the method universal.  .23 caliber shot goes something like 20 to an ounce.  It would take a lot of casting and sprue cutting to get many loads. 

DP

[James Rogers]

I have seen but can t quickly put my hand on more than one English reference  to a "swan shot'  mold. It was of course for round shot. There were even molds for small bird shot casting 100 at a time. Keith Neal has a great picture of one in Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790.

Most all historical shot references I have seen detail great lengths to make the shot round by various forms of tumbling, etc.   

Even Rupert's (1619-1682) detailing of the shot making process of drip shot contains details of keeping the shot round and avoiding tails. "so long as you observe the right temper of the heat,  the lead will constantly drop in to very round shot, without so much as one with a tail in many pounds."

Even then they know the value of round shot and tried to obtain it in every instance. For makeshift shot in a quick non-caring manner, tails are sufficient just as  a "get you in" tire and wheel when you have a flat. It can suffice but is not desired from a historic standpoint.         

[Dphariss]

Again you are assuming shot was purchased as is today.  Likely was by many.  The references I had heard for making shot may have been for the western fur trade or backwoods method.  There they bought powder and they bought lead.  They did not buy shot.  Dpharsis reference to shot being included in trade goods makes me think the natives may have bought shot.  Also with the trade gun almost a standard bore they may have wanted precast ball.  The finding of a few molds proves that a few people cast shot.  It does not make the method universal.  .23 caliber shot goes something like 20 to an ounce.  It would take a lot of casting and sprue cutting to get many loads. 

DP

The mass produced cast shot was produced in large gang moulds by shot makers. Prior to shot towers and likely after (unless the tower was very tall or cool air was blown in) this was apparently how larger shot was made. The largest Rupert shot Hamilton lists is  about .21" close to swan shot and likely(?) the French "Bustard" shot.
For people not buying shot Hamilton found cast large shot and Rupert shot and little of anything else at the 18th century sites. If it was available as a common trade item anyone could likely get it. Lead bars would have been more practical for rifle balls and buckshot.
Then the homemade shot maker has the problem of sieves which i suspect would have been fairly costly, unless you just wanted to use whatever came from dropping lead from a ladle into a container of water.
From accounts the performance of poorly made shot was such that I can't see people using it except in emergencies.
Someone needs to make some of this stuff and do some testing to see if it patterns well enough to RELIABLY kill small game to 25-30 yards. If it leaves a lot of holes in the pattern that would produce misses then it would be more cost effective to buy shot that gave a better kill ratio than to make stuff that resulted in wastes of powder an lead.
My idea of western fur trade, Montana, Wyoming etc. Had little use for shot in most cases since they were generally far out from places where one would find lots of birds and then they are only around for short periods. I would have to read "The Oregon Trail" again but Parkman's companion shot RBs in his shotgun IIRC. I don't recall any mention of bird hunting in Russell's Journal or other readings but I could have missed it. They mostly lived off dried or fresh meat. Deer, Antelope, Elk and Buff. Russell was near the shores of Yellowstone Lake cutting meat from a bale of dried meat and eating when the Indian attack that left him wounded started.
Now it is possible that someone at a post who wanted to shoot grouse or such with his shotgun and having no shot available might have made some for sport shooting.  But I don't recall reading any accounts from the Rocky Mountain fur trade of any significant bird hunting.
The Great Lakes area, likely Minn and parts of Canada that had lots of birds used Rupert shot according to Hamilton.

Dan

[Mike R]

Back to the original question.  Smoothbore accuracy cannot and does not compare well with rifle accuracy. You cannot expect 1" groups at 50 yds, even if it may occasionally occur.  My experience with shooting single ball rounds out of a smoothbore is limited, so I defer to those with more experience for statistics; however, holding for 'tight' groups without a rear sight is an art--and some are better at it than others.  My pal, a ML gunsmith and former NMLRA competition shooter, made a VA .50 smoothrifle recently and took it to a rifle match without even test firing it first.  He entered the match against all rifle shooters--and won it!  He had just guessed at a load and had never shot the gun before.  Dumb luck? No, he is a very experienced shooter; but I don't know the level of competition he was against.  The smoothrifle is a little different beast than the musket or fowler or trade gun, however, typically having a stiffer barrel and rear sights.  My .62 smoothbore fusil scatters balls all over a square foot target at 50 yds.  But I have not "tuned" the loads or my skills with it yet.  In close woods combat it would strike a man, but it ain't no hunting arm [to me].  Something like a smoothbore, stiff, well-sighted barrel on a Hawken rifle should do better than a sightless musket or fusil.  But I like to hunt with arms that will group tightly under ideal conditions, so that takes that uncertainty out of the equation--any misses will be MY fault, not the gun.  Therefore when I want to hit something I choose a rifle.