Colonial Myths

[Larry Pletcher]

This has been an interesting discussion - one where I have little experience. My home range has only space for 100 yd targets.  I have another place where I can get 200 yds but that is all. 

Maybe this topic should be tackled at Friendship in  September. The Creedmoor target might be pretty tough at 500 yds, but a spotter might be able to walk you unto the target. 

Another possibility would be to buy a Gorning practice target (200 yds) and develop the proper sight picture off a bench.  In either case having a spotter to help with the misses is probably a huge help.

Regards,
Pletch

[Daryl]

Right-on, Pletch- one needs someone with binocs to start then a fairly wide-angle spotting scope when the shots start getting close. It would be fun, seeing the balls 'drop' onto the target. At 500 yards, the angle of descent would be very steep - even steeper looking through a glass.

A standard 800 yard Creedmor target would be quite helpful for the open sights - hard to hit something you can't see. The 3' square 'centre' would help a lot.

[Colonial Riflesmith]

The only way to find out for yourself is to buy a lot of powder and ball, mark off 400 yards, and spend the day on the range. I've never tried a 400 yd shot with my ML, but I'll bet a dollar to a donut, that after a day in the field, I could hit the target. If your life depended on your shooting ability as it did then, I'd wager you'de be able to hit the target at 400 yds too.

[Daryl]

Good point CR - necessity is the mother of all invention - or whatever - practise, practise, practise.

[northmn]

It is one thing to go to a range and find your distance, or shoot at a known distance and do so in the field where the range is estimated.  We can all "walk in" shots but its the first shot at an unknown longer range that counts.  It was said that the old buffalo runners liked to shoot at 200 yards to avoid scaring the herd.  They shot a lot of buffalo, and pretty much could tell 200 when they were at 200 yards.  They also likely compensated slightly if they were 250 for instance by the hits they made.  One thing I do not believe is that the old timers were better shots than we are.  Powder and shot was too expensive as compared today for all the casual shooting we do.  I grew up shooting BB guns 22's and so forth and went through a lot of ammo.  They did not.  While there is such a thing as natural talent, we still have that talent, coupled with practice. If we cannot consistantly hit long range targets at unknown distances they sure as heck could not.

DP

[Dphariss]

It is one thing to go to a range and find your distance, or shoot at a known distance and do so in the field where the range is estimated.  We can all "walk in" shots but its the first shot at an unknown longer range that counts.  It was said that the old buffalo runners liked to shoot at 200 yards to avoid scaring the herd.  They shot a lot of buffalo, and pretty much could tell 200 when they were at 200 yards.  They also likely compensated slightly if they were 250 for instance by the hits they made.  One thing I do not believe is that the old timers were better shots than we are.  Powder and shot was too expensive as compared today for all the casual shooting we do.  I grew up shooting BB guns 22's and so forth and went through a lot of ammo.  They did not.  While there is such a thing as natural talent, we still have that talent, coupled with practice. If we cannot consistantly hit long range targets at unknown distances they sure as heck could not.

DP

The average person has never been a good shot. The buffalo hunters used a LOT of powder, lead, primers and patch paper. After a season of shooting I suspect they got pretty darned good at what they did.  The would shoot more animals in a good day than we will in 10-20 years of hunting. Then do it again the day after. Shooting 50-100 shots a day for even a month is a lot of experience something we DO NOT have BTW. Misses cost money, hits made money.
 2-3 shots to the buff was pretty typical. Some had telescopic sights, quite a few in fact, some with extra cross hairs for range estimation. Ranges ran from 200 to 500, sometimes 600. But closer was always better down to 200 or so. No need to get closer.
Just like today some were a lot better than others.
Here is a documented "luck" shot.
Jack Bean did a one shot kill on an indian at 1000+- yards with a 44-90 in 1874 Montana. Sat down, looked at the distance, looked at the wind, set his scope (yeah he used one) for the range and conditions, made the shot and the indian went off his horse. The place is known and there are a number of possible ranges to similar described terrain features. The closest is about 1000. This was well witnessed and documented AT THE TIME. See "The 1874 Invasion of Montana" and "Buckskin, Buffalo Robes, & Black Powder" by Don Wiebert.

Seller's book on the Sharps has some accounts of use on the plains as well.
"Getting a Stand"By Miles Gilbert is excellent.

Was Jack Bean lucky? Sure. But Jack Bean was a SERIOUS rifleman. He gave it his best guess and did a VERY difficult shot. His guess was very good and he pulled off a successful accident and thats what it was. But he knew enough to get close and the variables then all lined up right. It was a skillful accident. I doubt most shooters here could out shoot him. Especially when being charged by a large number of angry natives as also occurred.

Judging distance can be tough but if you are used to looking at animals and know how big they are and have experience it helps a great deal. How does the animal look through the sights? etc etc. A globe front can also be used as a crude range finder.

Dan

[wmrike]

Wow, I got cross-threaded with a few posters.  I didn't mean to cast dispersions on any of the member's shooting ability.  But I remain unrepentant in my view that lethal shots at unknown ranges greater than 300 yards, say, cannot be reliably made.  I'll swing by the silhouette range at Friendship next month and see if the ram goes down every time.

 I think we can all agree that today's rifles and equipment are better than two hundred years ago, and that a lot of the shooters here are more practiced.  We have the ability to measure the shot before it's taken, and then try it again and again until we get it right.  Range estimation is the biggie - beyond 300 yards a 25 yard error means you missed your man-sized target by shooting over or under.  A day on the range is one thing, but a one-off shot in the field is another matter.

I love Hanger's story.  The audacity, the lethality, and the fear, all rolled into a few sentences.  If you step back and consider it, though, the shooter had a composite target about 10 feet wide and most of six feet high, not counting legs, and it probably wasn't his intent to take it out on the orderly's horse merely as a warning.  If his buddies had told him to put another round into the horse to make certain it was good and dead, would he have made the shot?

DPHARISS - I've only shot to 1000 yards with highpower, and only to 800 with BCP, so admittedly, my experience is limited.  I recall my first long range (800) BCP match.  I was the new kid, everyone else was pretty well kitted out.  At the end of the day I realised that probably half of these 60 other, more experienced shooters were either still looking for 6' x 6' paper or struggling to stay on it.  True.  Thereafter I took a more jaundiced view of the stories of the buffalo hunters.

[bob in the woods]

WMRIKE...You should come to the DCRA black powder cartridge long range matches held in Ottawa every year. Honestly, most of the guys there don't have a problem staying on paper at 1000 yds.  I shot a 38 out of 50 and didn't place . Scores are often in the mid 40's and up!  And , yes, the wind does blow! About 6 years ago, I had 36 min. windage on my sights at 1000 yds.That was about the worst I've seen it.
That range, [ Connaught } is where I shot my flintlock .45 cal  1/18 twist rifle. If you keep in mind that these historic shots were directed at humans, they probably were very good at judging the distance based on the average height of a man. I have seen a book [ British ] which had a chart giving various distance examples based on that. It was a pretty interesting chart. From 100 to 600 yds if I remember correctly.
Most people in my experience,over estimate distance.

[Dphariss]

Wow, I got cross-threaded with a few posters.  I didn't mean to cast dispersions on any of the member's shooting ability.  But I remain unrepentant in my view that lethal shots at unknown ranges greater than 300 yards, say, cannot be reliably made.  I'll swing by the silhouette range at Friendship next month and see if the ram goes down every time.

 I think we can all agree that today's rifles and equipment are better than two hundred years ago, and that a lot of the shooters here are more practiced.  We have the ability to measure the shot before it's taken, and then try it again and again until we get it right.  Range estimation is the biggie - beyond 300 yards a 25 yard error means you missed your man-sized target by shooting over or under.  A day on the range is one thing, but a one-off shot in the field is another matter.

I love Hanger's story.  The audacity, the lethality, and the fear, all rolled into a few sentences.  If you step back and consider it, though, the shooter had a composite target about 10 feet wide and most of six feet high, not counting legs, and it probably wasn't his intent to take it out on the orderly's horse merely as a warning.  If his buddies had told him to put another round into the horse to make certain it was good and dead, would he have made the shot?

DPHARISS - I've only shot to 1000 yards with highpower, and only to 800 with BCP, so admittedly, my experience is limited.  I recall my first long range (800) BCP match.  I was the new kid, everyone else was pretty well kitted out.  At the end of the day I realised that probably half of these 60 other, more experienced shooters were either still looking for 6' x 6' paper or struggling to stay on it.  True.  Thereafter I took a more jaundiced view of the stories of the buffalo hunters.

You miss the point of Hangers story. REGARDLESS this was a heck of a shot. Furthermore the patriot made the British leave. Mission accomplished. He put a ball within a couple of feet of the General and the Col. The first shot past between two men horse back talking in normal tones, 400+- yards, cold turkey, iron sights. Can YOU do this???
I honestly don't see your point in discounting the accomplishment. I think it was a GREAT shot as did Hanger who was an accomplished rifleman himself.
BPCR...
Shooters could not find the 800 yard 6x6 target? You need to hang out with a better class of shooters.

The rams in BPCR sihouette are the same as HP 12"+- deep in the chest. Most good loads will shoot into 1-2 MOA at that distance, 500 yards or meters. So a good shot can run the rams with a little luck.
HOWEVER, if you do not know how or don't take the time to load the cartridges properly you can get 30" of vertical dispersion at 300 yards. Yeah I did this myself in testing by getting a little sloppy group was about 4" wide and 30" tall for 10 shots. So this translates into several feet at 800. Thus one shot is pretty well on for elevation then 1 or more are very low or high. Makes accurate shooting tough.

Here are the results from one of the "side matches" at Raton this year. The 5 at 200 match.
This is 5 shots 200 yards, BP only. Note that the over 40 matches were won with original rifles but I have no idea if the BARRELS were original but they easily could be.

Iron sights, over .40 cal. Darrell Smithson of MT.
Original Rem RB ,45-90 .......size 1.916"

Scope sight, over .40 cal. David Burger of TX.
Original Rem. RB , 45-70........size 1.096" This is a NEW record for any of
the classes both for the US and international matches.

Iron sight, .40 cal and under. Doug Gazaway of GA.
Browning .40-65 .... size 2.122"

Scope sight .40 cal and under. Jim Kidwell of GA.
Pedersoli John Bodine RB, 40-65 .....size 1.528"

I would have to look it up for specific details but one of the Irish Rifle team members circa 1877-1878 shot a long string of shots 10 or so at 1000 all inside the 36" black, with a Sharps longrange when he visited the factory. 3-3.5 MOA with irons at 1000, not too bad at all.,

Now shots at unknown ranges....Always tough. But the plains are generally dusty and one sighter, from eye witness accounts would put the shooter on at 400-500 yards even on deer sized animals. When the buffalo were gone some turned to market hunting and deer were still pretty plentiful. Even today a BPCR does not scare game all that much.
And as I stated they got pretty good at distances and had cheaters as described in the other post. Many used globe front sights and how large the animal looked in the globe was a guide. A friend used to use this for elk. Not fool proof but with practice its a usable range finder.


So don't equate what you experienced at 800 as typical. It took several years of learning to get back what was lost when BP was replaced by smokeless. But BP will REALLY shoot if loaded right. If not it can be very bad.
One more little tid bit IIRC the last 1000 yard match won with BP was in 1900, Sharps Borchardt longrange with BP ammo. Outshot the 30-40 Krags to win.
There is quite a lot of interesting info about the hide hunters that has been published in the past 10-15 years. It might be informative. Getting a Stand is available from TOW.
Late
Dan

[raldridge-mt]

my grandfathers uncle was shot thru the stomach w/ a steel ramrod during the CW, he finally died in 1910, his 'guts' never did heal right, mostly he lived on boiled chicken, whiskey n buttermilk..

[northmn]

The buffalo runners were probably unique in the amount of shooting they did.  They also had far more sophisticated equipment than the colonial shooter.  Another point is that the young recruits in the Revolution and the war of 1812 commonly did not own a gun.  The family may have had a gun that they shot but it was shared.  Old Hickory was said to be surprised when some of his recruits had showed up without guns for that reason.  In the Lakota uprising in MN they claimed that the Lakota did not have a  lot of resistance from the settlers as many did not own firearms.  When the crews for the fur trade signed up and outfitted themselves they had to buy firearms, not because the fur trade guns were so much better than what they had as that they did not have any firearms.  Accounts of the mountain men indicated that they really were not crack shots, the English sportsmen that attended rondeszvous were better.

DP
 

[Dphariss]

<snip>  Accounts of the mountain men indicated that they really were not crack shots, the English sportsmen that attended rondeszvous were better.

DP
 

Or the limeys drank less
I think Francis Parkman beat the English he shot against.

The comments about farmers not having guns in Minnesota could be right but its one of the Darwin award things where the stupid get thinned out. The James gang had a rough time in Northfield so apparently the citizens there had guns, but it was years later. We had a young guy working for us for a couple of years back about 1973 whose family survived the Sioux uprising. His family story stated they had always treated the Sioux as friends and neighbors and were not molested.
Growing up in Iowa many of our neighbors were old order Amish and they almost all had firearms even though non-violent by religion. I can see 1-2 guns in a household but not no guns as typical, most people used the gun to help keep themselves fed and Western Minnesota was frontier. But many may have been recent immigrants from Europe and did not have the background of the longer term residents of NA.

Most people don't have any interest in firearms nor do they ever learn to shoot unless somehow forced to it. This makes them sheep, ripe for attack by the wolf.

Dan

[northmn]

I used to work in the area where the uprising took place.  Minnesota was being settled by a variety of European immigrants back then with different ethnic communites springing up.  The area I worked in was Polish and Czech with a sprinkling of German at that time.  They had records of building a stockade for defense but never had to use it.  Scandinavians settled a lot in the North.  In 1863 many of these folks were not armed and came from countries where being armed was not common.  Northfield had a little warning of when the James Youger group was coming and was able to mount a defense from rooftops IE gather armed citizens.  I also want to point out that there were an awful lot of shots fired in that little confrontation in comparison to hits.  Mostly the townsmen had the protection of the old false front buildings and were on roof tops.  Really the ranges were not that long.  As an interesting aside, Frank Dalton was interviewed after his prison term and stated that it was a good thing a lot of the people carried pistols otherwise more people would have gotten hurt.  The last Native American vs White battle was fought in the 1890 on Battle Point on Leech Lake.  As battles go it was rather uninspiring as the two neighboring communities got mad at each other and realized they were not that mad once they started shooting at each other.  The Ojibwa still live on Leech Lake.


DP

[northmn]

I reread the account of the Dakota war in MN.  Mostly it started due to failure of the government to live up to agreements, partly from the demands of the civil war and partly due to an assinine Indian agent who stated that the if the Sioux were starving they could eat grass.  The individual was later found killed by the Dakota with grass in his mouth.  3-400 settlers were killed, the largest number on record for an uprising.  The Dakotas defeated several militia groups before the regular army was brought in.  One thing to consider is that the Dakota may have been better armed than we often think due to trade for firearms.  At this time many would have had rifles not just trade muskets.  Whether the settlers were armed or not may have not of mattered much as the weapons of the time were hardly rapid fire and they would have been overwhelmed.  Just a little FYI.

DP

[TPH]

When I was a teenager I caught the metal detecting bug. I found a bullet at civil war battlefield. I had wondered why the bullet looked the way it did and then one day it came to me and I got my civil war musket to see if it was true. Yep, the top of the compressed bullet was formed by a ramrod as mine fit the impression perfectly. I believe I can safely say the bullet was fired with the ramrod in the barrel.

Possible, but more likely a fouled bore causing the bullet needing to be forced down the barrel, it is a common sight on recovered bullets where firing was heavy.

[hanshi]

Predictably, many immigrants, probably most, would not have brought firearms with them.  Once it became clear how badly guns were need to feed the family and protect against marauding animals (4 and 2 legged), some sort of gun would likely be acquired.  Regional differences surely would have had an effect.

[Dphariss]

  Northfield had a little warning of when the James Youger group was coming and was able to mount a defense from rooftops IE gather armed citizens.  I also want to point out that there were an awful lot of shots fired in that little confrontation in comparison to hits.  Mostly the townsmen had the protection of the old false front buildings and were on roof tops.  Really the ranges were not that long.  As an interesting aside, Frank Dalton was interviewed after his prison term and stated that it was a good thing a lot of the people carried pistols otherwise more people would have gotten hurt.  The last Native American vs White battle was fought in the 1890 on Battle Point on Leech Lake.  As battles go it was rather uninspiring as the two neighboring communities got mad at each other and realized they were not that mad once they started shooting at each other.  The Ojibwa still live on Leech Lake.


DP

Bullets tend to fly both ways in gunfights and such. It tends to spoil people's aim.
And most the outlaws were shot though many survived.

Dan

[northmn]

What amazed me was that one of the Youngers was hit 11 times and survived. While I can understand the peripheral hits, back then a large number of folks died of infection from the gunshot wounds even if the wound itself was not terminal.  Bullets were lubed with some funny stuff and there was no penicillin.
Even today one can see some pretty fantastic proportions of shots fired to hits in firefights.

DP

[Steamingspud]

Speaking of surviving shots, if I can make a 400 yard test area with a target big enough to hit every time, I'm thinking of testing something.
The tale of the colonist who put the shot between the officers and into the (Bugle boy?) as I had heard a long time ago was only estimated by one man, although a renowned marksman and such. But maybe it's a fat faced lie for other reasons than being an almost impossible shot. Would a ball be moving fast enough at 400 yards to kill a man?
my test might involve a few measures of powder and seeing which one penetrates different thicknesses of wood, but I gotta find a better way to gauge plywood thickness to chest strength. Any ideas?

[bob in the woods]

Trust me on this. Yes, the ball will be lethal at 400 yds.  Given a decent charge. We often shoot at 200 and 300 yds . I use my .54.  If I put the base of the front sight at the very top edge of my rear sight, plus the height again of the rear sight, I'm on at 300. That is with a .535 ball and 90 gr of 3F  The guys in the pit will tell you that the balls don't bounce off the 2x4 frames !

[catchinzs]

I'm not disagreeing with Bob because real world results mean more than a calculator but I found one any way. 

http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/rbballistics.html

Basically it says the following:

177 grain (.490) round ball with a muzzle velocity of 1800 FPS (setting the zero point of it's tragectory at 380 yards) would hit a target 380 yards away at 399 FPS with 62.8 FPE.

The calculator is defaulted to 1800 FPS but it can be change by using the Vxxxx command.

Now I can't seem to find out what is considered a legal/non-lethal shot for a human torso.

[SCLoyalist]

Speaking of surviving shots, if I can make a 400 yard test area with a target big enough to hit every time, I'm thinking of testing something....... Would a ball be moving fast enough at 400 yards to kill a man?

  I assumed a .535 ball, 80 gr charge which would, according to the Lyman tables, give 1600 fps muzzle velocity.  At 300 yds, Lyman says it would have 586 fps vel, 175 ft-lbs energy.    It should still be moving at 570 fps at 400 yds,  for 158 ft-lbs energy.  That's on par, I think, of getting hit at short range with a 38 cal revolver (okay, maybe one with an anemic load).

To simulate a hit on a living target, maybe hang a ham.   Do your test quickly enough, and you can still eat the target later, 'cause all you need to do is hit the target once to see the damage.

SCL

[T*O*F]

Now I can't seem to find out what is considered a legal/non-lethal shot for a human torso.

I think that "Hatcher's Notebook" contains that info based on testing done at the Frankford Arsenal for the US Army.

[Steamingspud]

Do your test quickly enough, and you can still eat the target later,

If only politicians had such intelligence...

All the same, I might try that next month at a new range in New Hampshire. Opening dinner!

[Dphariss]

Now I can't seem to find out what is considered a legal/non-lethal shot for a human torso.

I think that "Hatcher's Notebook" contains that info based on testing done at the Frankford Arsenal for the US Army.

Actual testing has shown that Hatchers maximum ranges are a little long according to what I have been told. At least for 50-54 caliber balls.

So far as lethality.
With 75 grains of powder and a 495 RB at 300 yards I got enough penetration along the side of pine tree to convince me that it would kill a man.
It entered at the edge and traveled along about 1/2 deep in the tree for about 3-4". I suppose I should walk out there and photo the damage and dig ball out.
I would expect the 400 is getting pretty close to max for serious damage though.
 Col Hangers range estimation. He was a military officer, a rifleman, he said he had been over the ground several times. Military men were pretty good at estimating distances. They were trained for it or at least had to know it. He saw the guy take the position so he had a size reference as did the shooter.
Yeah he might have been off 10% but this could be either way. I don't know why Hanger would lie about it.
A friend was able to hit a 30" 500 yard gong with a 54 flint. But it took some trials to get the range.

Dan