Long Range Lethality

[northmn]

This discussion got started in Colonial Myths concerning the story of a horse veing shot at 400 yards by a colonist.  Dpharsis kind of laid down a challenge for someone with the time and equipment to research.  I have little time and equipment but here goes.  I just through a little more than 4 inches of wet pack (newsprint saturated in water so that it is very wet)  with my 54 loaded with about 23 grains of 2f, which chronographed between 500-590 fps.  Thsi was the estimated retained velocity of a RB at that distance.  We used to use that medium to test bullet expansion.  If it failed it was becasue it was a little too dense.  I just ran out of time and wet newsprint but plan on seeing how deep it will go. In my opinion this would be a lethal hit.  It would take out any major arteries in a human or perforate the intestines.  If the horse were hit in the neck it could rupture the carotid artery.  While hardly a deer load, it probably would kill one if hit between the ribs.  Not recommending light loads but they can fool us. 

DP

[Dphariss]

Good work....

Dan

[jmforge]

If you think about it, now much slower is 590 fps than the MUZZLE velocity of some of the early "big bore" cartridge revolvers like a lot of the short case .44's?  The bullet weight would have been similar too.

[northmn]

I just finished up and found it went through 5-5/12 inches of the wet pack.  A 22 LR shot through 6 inches, but 22's can fool you.  When I tried 2 inches of wet pack I put a Cabela's catalog behind it to see if that would stop it.  It shot through the wet pack and a dry catalog about 1/2 inch thick.  It would probably go through a thin rib bone.  It would take down a deer, especially a small one, but tracking might be a challenge.  A friend of mine that I used to shoot matches with, claimed he shot a bedded deer with his 50 at about 270 yards.  He killed the deer and paced the distance.  I respected that persons statements and opinions and have no reason to doubt him.  He was a quiet type and never made any wild claims other than to say that his 50 would kill well but did not do the damage of a 308.  He also liked RB better than the maxi ball a couple of his companions used as he stated they seemed to be more effective at closer range.  Last time I talked to him he had shot about 30 deeer with a ML.  MN permited party hunting and he tended to fill out tags for others hunting with him.

DP

[Walks with Fire]

When I first started muzzleloading I took a few pokes at whitetails at ranges slightly beyond 100 yards; most were hit but never recovered. I limit my shots to under 80 yards with a .50 roundball now and have not lost any but some extended tracking has taken place in our hunting group even with very well hit whitetails. If the wind is blowing much or shooting through any brush screening even shots out to 80 yards can move off point of aim a bit; enough to cause some issues in my opinion. If there is fresh snow and little wind coupled with a good rest I might push the .495 .50 caliber roundball at 100 yards.

Many people have done it at longer ranges and are more than happy to give us the details. I have enough experience to know it's risky business and hold my fire over the 100 yard mark.

[northmn]

My purpose was not to promote long range shooting with an open sighted ML as much as to point out that some of the tales we have heard is possible.  Most hits get pretty tricky beyond 100 yards although some are made. 

DP

[Walks with Fire]

Sorry Northmn. I was just stating an opinion on my experience in whitetail hunts here in PA over the years. Didn't mean to imply that it should or should not be done; just my experience and others views and abilities are different than mine.

But; to get back to the tales that are told, no doubt many are true and actually happened. But that's war and for sure hits and kills at long range are more than possible. I would bet many of those fella's could drop the hammer and hit in many situations one would not expect. I never did enough shooting and dooping the wind to know how hard it would be at long range but those boys had plenty of experience and in many cases their lives depended on that rifle and their ability to hit with it. I am sure many were quite good.

[Candle Snuffer]

It's been a while since reading about the 400 yard shot that killed the horse and made the English Officer's move from their knoll, (or where'ever they were at, at that time of the shot).  Even though the shot did not hit a soldier, it was an effective shot as Command knew at that moment that they were in harms way and were reachable from American fire.  Perhaps not extreme accurate fire, but close enough that damage could, and was being done.

No one should try to compare a hunting shot on big game, with a "sniping" shot at the enemy.  The question of whether or not the 400 yard shot could have killed has been answered.  It could, and did.  It killed a horse.

Did the shot effect the outcome of this particular engagement?  Maybe, maybe not?  It did however send a clear measage from the American side.  A message that was simply delivered with that one shot...  'If we see you, we'll shoot you no matter the range, we will send lead your way.'

This most certainly would have to work on the enemy Commander's mind set in furture engagements...  No shot at the enemy is ever wasted when it sends a message like that 400 yard shot did.

You may not see the results in the overall picture of the ARW as it unfolded, but the message was sent that day.

Good report on the test DP.

  

[northmn]

I have a hay field right outside my garage and see a lot of deer at 300-400 yards or so.  It would be a accident if they were hit with a round ball, and more of one if they were hit well.  They look pretty small at that range.  I go back to the fact that we can lob em in there after while at known ranges but the drops are such that even 25 yards at extreme ranges could make a difference.  According to the Lyman handbook  A 54 cal RB at 300 yards drops about 10 feet with a 50 yard sight in.  That is if driven at 1800 fps.  Out in the field, there have cases where a person can walk in a shot or get very lucky but hits at very long ranges with open sights would be rare.  That same 54 RB also drifts about 7 feet with a 10 mph cross wind.  A long range BPC shooter said it all when he stated that if the range is known you can set the sights, its the wind that gets you.  Military snipers have the same concern today.

DP

[Long John]

Candle hit the nail on the head!  During the AWI and body hit was apt to be mortal and any hit that fractured the main bone in a limb was apt to lead to amputation.  Medical science was a little "primative" compared to what we have now.

While I would not take shots at deer routinely at 200 yards I did drop a mule deer buck last year from what we later determined to be 125 yards.  One shot - dead deer.  (I'm shooting a 54 caliber rifle with an 85 grain charge of FFFg GOEX black powder.)

My brother and I both shoot gongs at 200 and 300 yards - hung up across some of his neighbor's hay fields - and routinely hit.  You just have to know your rifle's tragectory and how to hold at such ranges.  We both use Elmer Kieth's method of holding the front sight proud of the rear using Patridge pattern sights.  We could both make a body hit on a deer at 200 yards but that deer would run a ways and recovery would become problematic.  So we don't do it.  But if I was in a war and I knew that a wounded opponent was out-of-action I would take the long shot and then run and hide; just like Timothy Murphy.

Best Regards,

JMC

[Daryl]

Hunting sights are - standing point blank to 120 meters, 1st leaf 150meters, second leaf 200 meters. The tall third leaf is zero'd for 300 meter steel gongs.  This takes the guesswork out of 'long range shooting with round balls.  The black lines in the middle of the sights are actually silver - needs to be polished with heavy denim to brighten for hunting.

[BrownBear]

As for lethality, someone mentioned handguns.  I can contribute a couple of useful accounts for comparison.

In days of yore I carried a 6" K-38 on all centerfire deer hunts, loaded with very light rounds for taking the occasional squirrels in the concurrent seasons:  1.7 grains of Bullseye under a 148 grain bevel base wadcutter.  I never chronoed the load, but doubt it left the muzzle any faster than 550fps.  In any case, on a sunny day you could see the wadcutter all the way to the target.  It was lethal on squirrels as far away as I could hit them, and one day a small buck stepped out of cover about 20 yards off just as I was about to shoot one.  I was running on instinct and not really thinking about the load, when I quickly aimed and dropped one of those wadcutters into the neck right where it joins the skull.  Very dead deer.

And I've whacked lots of deer with both 44 Special and 45 Colt handguns, loaded similarly with either 240 or 250 grain bullets at 700-750fps MV.  They're both extremely lethal on deer out to around 50 yards, as far as I've ever tried them.  And there's no way either is going much faster than 500fps at 50 yards.

How much harder is a horse to kill than a deer?  It surely depends on where you hit them.  The few horses I've had to put down were head shots behind the ear with a 22 handgun, but dead is dead.

Northmn's tests jibe completely with my field experiences.

[Dphariss]

A friend shot a deer at 120 yards with a 45 Rb last fall and she dropped at the shot. Broke a rib going in and coming out.
Deer when down, he figures due to shock to the spine. She raised here head and he shot her again as he approached.
I have shot though deer to 140-150 yards with 50 caliber RBs.

The 400 yard shot at the British Officers was done by someone who may well have known where to hold +- and probably held up in the trees behind the target.
As has been pointed out by candle  the military use of firearms is different than hunting. The rifleman denied the enemy's further recon of the area and cost them a horse to boot.  A desirable outcome. It is doubtful the rifleman would have shot at a deer at this range.

Dan

[hanshi]

My experiences have been much like those posted above.  I use to do a lot of handgun hunting, both small and large.  I once used a .44mag to drop a buck at a measured 90 yards.  Terminal velocity would have been close to 1100fps.  I also used HBWC over 2.7 grns Bullseye in my K-38 but never got the chance to use it on anything larger than squirrels.  I got the impression that close up it would certainly take larger game.  The longest shot I ever attempted with prb was with a short barreled .50 flint.  If I remember correctly MV was close to 1800fps.  At some 130 +- yards penetration was complete.  The deer did not run far.  I was in the middle of a field and rested the rifle over a hay bale.  I'm of the opinion that as long as velocity is high enough to penetrate to the vitals-and it doesn't take a lot-a large diameter ball is lethal way beyond it's paper energy.

[BrownBear]

The 400 yard shot at the British Officers was done by someone who may well have known where to hold +- and probably held up in the trees behind the target.
As has been pointed out by candle  the military use of firearms is different than hunting. The rifleman denied the enemy's further recon of the area and cost them a horse to boot.  A desirable outcome. It is doubtful the rifleman would have shot at a deer at this range.

Dan

I'm betting he was aiming at the officer and managed to hit the horse.  About the level of accuracy I'd expect, and entirely suitable for the purposes.  But hunting?  Nah.  Aint yet seen a deer riding a horse.

[Dphariss]

The 400 yard shot at the British Officers was done by someone who may well have known where to hold +- and probably held up in the trees behind the target.
As has been pointed out by candle  the military use of firearms is different than hunting. The rifleman denied the enemy's further recon of the area and cost them a horse to boot.  A desirable outcome. It is doubtful the rifleman would have shot at a deer at this range.

Dan

I'm betting he was aiming at the officer and managed to hit the horse.  About the level of accuracy I'd expect, and entirely suitable for the purposes.  But hunting?  Nah.  Aint yet seen a deer riding a horse.

The quote is in "Colonial Riflemen in the American Revolution" and in "The Frontier Rifleman" as well.

Dan

[northmn]

Personally I think the shooter had a rough idea where to hold and got lucky to hit anything.  Even a 5 mile crosswind at 300 yards will move a ball about 4 feet according to charts.  The rifleman was likely good enough to hedge his luck a bit but still lucky.  I doubt if the rifleman would have hit an elk at that rahge as he was likely shooting at the officer.

DP

[Candle Snuffer]

This is kind of a therory of mine.  I think 'some' Riflemen of that period (AWI) & the (F&IW) most likely practiced (to a degree) some long range shooting, much like we do today,,, but ours is for pure fun and or expermintation, and perhaps a match or two sometimes.  Back in the 1760's - 1780's it may very well have been a necessity for some to have some long range shooting skills.

What may have prompted the long range shooting skills of the 1760's - 1780's?

I'm thinking it was probably born out of the defense of fortifications when they came under seige by cannon, and or, Indian attack at places like Boonesborough, or anyother fortified settlement or out post up and down the frontier of that time.

I doubt the hunters of those days practiced long range shots on game.  That would be to risky as it is today, but more so the reason probably being that back then you simply couldn't waste a shot on the frontier when you needed food, so close range shooting was the smart move.

However, long range ball lobbing at the enemy was all together a different story, especially if you could slow the progress of the cannons being moved forward,,, closer and closer to your fortification for a continual (more accurate) ponding on you and all the others held up in a fort.

It would also be a good way to possibly pick off a War Chief if you came under attack by the Indians.  Take him out, or try and take him out,  before he can lead the attack.  Perhaps taking any enemy Indian out would be enough to encourage them to go away and not attack?

So I kind of think there was some long range practicing done by the better marksmen on the frontier, and done so with a military type mind set at holding the enemy at bay from the top of your fort walls for as long as you could.

I think once the AWI arrived the long range idea was just adapted differentyl towards the enemy, yet those making the long shots probably had some experience by this time in the art (if you want to call it that) of shooting long range.

Just some additional thoughts.

 

[Dphariss]

Personally I think the shooter had a rough idea where to hold and got lucky to hit anything.  Even a 5 mile crosswind at 300 yards will move a ball about 4 feet according to charts.  The rifleman was likely good enough to hedge his luck a bit but still lucky.  I doubt if the rifleman would have hit an elk at that rahge as he was likely shooting at the officer.

DP

Sure the guy knew. Today we have no reason to shoot 400 yards with a flintlock rifle but when they were used in warfare this was a different matter.  There were complaints by officers of riflemen shooting too far and wasting powder. But some would have learned just how far they COULD shoot in the process.

Hanger stated it was August and there was not a breath of air.
They were at the edge of the trees so the shooter had a back drop of hold over points.
It was a doable shot considering the shooter was prone on a mill dam and not wind and its proved out by the killing of the horse and the close call for the officers.

Dan

[northmn]

As stated at that range it had a large element of luck.  Had he just had a near miss it would not have been so famous.  Most of us that have shot a lot have made some fantastic shots that would be difficult to duplicate.  In many military situations one can walk in shots.  If you have ever seen the movie Zulu Dawn, the British also set out range markers when they graduated to the Martini's.  The hitting power of a round ball at real long ranges is lethal but not impressive.  While my tests convinced me that the round ball would be dangerous at that range, I still got better penetration out of a 22LR.  Comparison to the old revolvers is a good one as some of them were relatively anemic.

DP

[Randy Hedden]

I remember reading an account of Lincoln going to a battlefield where the opposing troops were more than a half mile away across some farm field.  To get a better look Lincoln stood up on a stone fence next to a stone pillar for the gate.  A bullet from the opposing troops smacked into the stone pillar not more than a couple of feet away from where Lincoln stood.

Randy Hedden

[Candle Snuffer]

I recall reading a similar account of that, Randy.  Don't exactly know where, but if I recall, the Secret Service was always concerned about Lincoln opening himself up to enemy sniping fire when he visited his Field Commander's.

[northmn]

In Lincoln's times the Confederates were using rifles like the Whitworth, which were set up for longer range shooting and used elongated bullets.  A Whitworth bullet was a 45 weighing about 480 grains.  One of the things when I used to shoot matches was that a a match of say 50 shooters, I only had to beat about the same 4 other shooters to win.  Some of the shooting I saw at 100 yards was pretty abysmal.  When I was in charge of setting up matches for the shooting club I belonged to I used the 50 yard pistol target, about 2 feet square or so for the 100 yard target as it differentiated the better shots and permitted the poorer ones a score to maintain interest.  Lets accept the fact that there were a few excellent shots in GG Grandad's day.  How many were really that good
Look at you own shooting matches.  Other factors may include the inherent accuracy of the rifles.  Were they loaded as tight as a match rifle of today? Were molds as round?  A British officer once wrote that morning was a good time to hunt rebels, the dew increased the chances of misfires and they could draw their fire and charge in and get them with bayonets.  I suspect he was a light infantry commander as that sounds like a tactic they would use and one to use against sniping units.  Also sounds like much of the shooting was still relatively close.  Another British officer wrote that the Brown Bess unless "exceedingly ill bored" could hit a man at 80 yards.  Once inside the extra accuracy cushion of a rifle the advantage of the faster loading smoothbore takes over.

DP

[BrownBear]

In Lincoln's times the Confederates were using rifles like the Whitworth, which were set up for longer range shooting and used elongated bullets.  A Whitworth bullet was a 45 weighing about 480 grains.  One of the things when I used to shoot matches was that a a match of say 50 shooters, I only had to beat about the same 4 other shooters to win.  Some of the shooting I saw at 100 yards was pretty abysmal.  When I was in charge of setting up matches for the shooting club I belonged to I used the 50 yard pistol target, about 2 feet square or so for the 100 yard target as it differentiated the better shots and permitted the poorer ones a score to maintain interest.  Lets accept the fact that there were a few excellent shots in GG Grandad's day.  How many were really that good
Look at you own shooting matches.  Other factors may include the inherent accuracy of the rifles.  Were they loaded as tight as a match rifle of today? Were molds as round?  A British officer once wrote that morning was a good time to hunt rebels, the dew increased the chances of misfires and they could draw their fire and charge in and get them with bayonets.  I suspect he was a light infantry commander as that sounds like a tactic they would use and one to use against sniping units.  Also sounds like much of the shooting was still relatively close.  Another British officer wrote that the Brown Bess unless "exceedingly ill bored" could hit a man at 80 yards.  Once inside the extra accuracy cushion of a rifle the advantage of the faster loading smoothbore takes over.

DP

Somewhere in my stuff I've got an account of one Lincoln battlefield visit very close to Washington DC, including contemporary photos.  They built an elevated wooden platform for him to stand on to watch the show.  Trouble was, when he got up there bullets started whizzing around him and some actually hit the platform.  They also recount a a very undiginified hasty retreat from the platform.

As for the Bess on a man at 80 yards, that really makes me wonder about how they were being loaded for military use.  I'll have to make up some paper cartridges for comparison and even try bare ball, but with ticking patches, my own short Bess could hit a man sized target with some reliability at 80, and often enough to be worth taking a crack well past 100 yards.  I'm not saying they'd be instantly killing shots, but the recipient would be keeping folks busy in the infirmary for a long time. 

[Daryl]

Taylor's first Bess was good enough for shooting a cow moose at 100 yards, with a piddling 100gr. 2F. It seems to me it usually put in about a 10" group at that range, well within the chest cavity of a moose. That pure ball stopped on the off side, expanded out to about 1 1/4" - I still have the 'disk'.