• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

18th-century accuracy?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
BTW, for that hunter who bet he could hit a Dollar at 100 yards from the standing/offhand position enough times to bet on it with certainty and considering the size of the dollar coin was 1 1/2 inch, I would bet that rifle was capable of shooting 1 MOA (1 Minute of Angle or 1 inch at 100 yards). I know we don't often think of MOA for muzzleloading rifles, but that sure sounds to me like he had a 1 MOA rifle - at least until the distance got further and/or wind drove the ball off from where it would normally hit.

Gus
 
The rifles Blane described were not what we would be real excited about, today, IMHO.

"This is the only fire-arm used throughout all the Western States, and is generally from three and a half to four feet long in the barrel. It has one turn in four feet, weighs from twelve to fourteen pounds, has a very small and crooked stock, and carries a remarkably small bullet."

I live in the area Blane was discussing, and I've seen quite a few rifles from that time. Large, heavy barrel, very slender butt stock with a very low comb and a rather amazing amount of drop at the heel. Not attractive to my eye.

Blane was very impressed with the accuracy exhibited by the backwoodsmen and their rifles.

"... I have often seen a Backwoodsman send a ball through the head of one [squirrel] which was peeping from between a forked bough at the top of one of the highest trees, and which I myself could hardly distinguish."

"After driving up a flock of these birds, the hunter advances within fifteen or twenty paces, raises his long heavy rifle, and rarely misses striking the bird on the head. I have witnessed over and over again this surprising accuracy, and have fired away numberless pounds of lead in trying to imitate it, but without success. I contented myself therefore with shooting the birds in the body, by which I rather tore and spoilt them. But, however difficult I found it to hit a bird anywhere with a single ball, the Backwoodsmen regarded my unsportsmanlike shooting with as much contempt, as one of our country squires feels, when a cockney shoots at a covey of partridges on the ground."

Spence
 
Artificer said:
BTW, for that hunter who bet he could hit a Dollar at 100 yards from the standing/offhand position enough times to bet on it with certainty and considering the size of the dollar coin was 1 1/2 inch, I would bet that rifle was capable of shooting 1 MOA (1 Minute of Angle or 1 inch at 100 yards). I know we don't often think of MOA for muzzleloading rifles, but that sure sounds to me like he had a 1 MOA rifle - at least until the distance got further and/or wind drove the ball off from where it would normally hit.

Gus


1 MOA is possible with an ml rifle. But most offhand rifles won't accomplish that. Rifles that can find the 'X' consistently at 100 yards with a prb are invariably heavy bench rifles shot from a rest. OTOH, a good rifle in the hands of a good shooter can come close. At Friendship the participants in the Hawken and buffalo X-stick matches always amazed me with what they accomplished.
 
Here's a famous target from the last year of the 17th Century.

It was in the field trials of the Baker Rifle - fired at 100 yards. It passed. (3-1/2 ft group . . . though it was offhand, I believe).

target.jpg
 
When we were kids a game we played was to not hit the turtle.

That's when you hit the sand bar under the turtle and who's turtle flies furthest wins. That was some real long shots, steady braces and young eyes. And shooting a .45 instead of a .54 really wasn't a handicap.
So how far away did men who were fighting with their muzzleloaders develop the expertise to kill the enemy? Don't know. But when that red coat flopped I bet they yelled something about like COWABUNGA!
 
I think you meant to say 18th century.

Here's a target shown in Scloppetaria, by Capt. Henry Beaufroy, 1808.



The caption says: "The Position of 12 successive Shots, out of 19 successive Hits, from a Rest at 250 Yards distance. Fired with a Rifle made by William Moore, No.n8. White Chapel."

The circles are labeled 4-10-18-30 In.

Spence
 
I am trying to get the details of that match. As I recall the contest was between Dieverbaugh and a British rifleman. The bet was backed by Morgan and a British officer. The winning shooter got half of the money and a bottle of shrub.

Jacob Dieverbaugh's feat is recounted in Ted Franklin Belue's book, "The Hunters of Kentucky".

Then there was Jacob Dieverbaugh's spectacular shooting. Dieverbaugh, a hunter for George Morgan, who on a July day in 1768 on a dare and a wager to "try his powder," popped a small rum keg 10 shots of 11 at 100 yards, then won 100 Spanish dollars in Pennsylvania currency bynailing clean at the same distance a barrel head 100 times out of 100 shots.

That match was replicated annually at the April Trade Faire at Fort de Chartres. There we shoot at a 6" gong at about 100 yards. The contest is to determine the number of consecutive hits on the gong. The winner gets half of the prize money and a bottle of shrub (lemon juice and rum). Normally the winner is between 15 and 20 consecutive hits. Significantly less on windy days. There are a lot of 0's.
 
Harriet Simpson Arnow in her book, "Seedtime on the Cumberland," has the similar story.

As I paraphrase, he shot at the small rum barrel to test his powder for 11 shots and then went on to shoot at the larger barrel head.

The bet was between George Morgan and a Captain Forbes. Morgan gave Dieverbaugh the whole 100 Spanish milled dollars.
 
The original, quoted from Mark Baker, Sons of a Trackless Forest, pp. 127:

George Morgan in Kaskaskia, letter to his partners in Philadelphia, July, 1768. He mentioned the letter would be sent east by Jacob Dieverbaugh, one of his hunters, then says:

“He is a most excellent Hunter, a Fellow Whose Word can be depended on & exceedingly obliging. Should you have Occasion to send such a Person to this Place with Letters, permit me to recommend him in preference to any or all others Who may offer. He says he will come down again for Us if you desire---If not he will make a Hunt all the Way down the Ohio for himself. He will give you a Description of the Land of my Plantation where he has hunted for a Month past.

“In a Conversation over a Bottle of Wine at Capt Forbes I was much bantered about employing English Hunters---Who several insisted on it could neither Shoot nor hunt so well as the French or Indians. I was laugh’d at particularly by Col. Cole for saying I had some of the best marksmen in the Illinois & he offered to Wager £100 against any one of them Whom I should choose or any five of them to shoot by turns 100 Yds at a Bbl Head without any kind of rest whatever---for every Time they hit the Bbl he to pay me £100 every time they miss’d it I to pay him the like Sum. I told him he might choose the Worst Shot from amongst all the Hunters I had & I would Wager a Dollar each Shot for One hundred Shots certain & as many more as he pleased. Dieverbaugh was pitche’d upon---Who to try Powder set up the Head of a small Keg 100 yards and struck it 10 Times out of Eleven shots as fast as he could load & fire. He then began at the barrel & won the Whole of the One hundred Dollars---Which before he began I told him I would make him a present of if he Won them---He therefore has my draught on you for £[blank in the manuscript] balance of his acct in wch the above is included which you will oblige me by paying to him without any Detention. As Col. Cole has paid me therefor & which is included in One of the enclosed Bills.”

I have a very early original powder keg, the head is 10 inches.

Spence
 
There was a temporary glitch in that attachment, I think. I couldn't see it when he posted, but in a couple of minutes I could.

Spence
 
A 4 foot group (the Baker rifle man size target) at 200 yards would garner you nothing but derision, laughing, and utter contempt from today's M.O.A. freaks...

But 220 years ago, that was considered very impressive accuracy. :wink:
 
Rifleman1776 said:
Artificer said:
BTW, for that hunter who bet he could hit a Dollar at 100 yards from the standing/offhand position enough times to bet on it with certainty and considering the size of the dollar coin was 1 1/2 inch, I would bet that rifle was capable of shooting 1 MOA (1 Minute of Angle or 1 inch at 100 yards). I know we don't often think of MOA for muzzleloading rifles, but that sure sounds to me like he had a 1 MOA rifle - at least until the distance got further and/or wind drove the ball off from where it would normally hit.

Gus


1 MOA is possible with an ml rifle. But most offhand rifles won't accomplish that. Rifles that can find the 'X' consistently at 100 yards with a prb are invariably heavy bench rifles shot from a rest. OTOH, a good rifle in the hands of a good shooter can come close. At Friendship the participants in the Hawken and buffalo X-stick matches always amazed me with what they accomplished.

With sincere respect, I have to disagree with the emboldened sentence above, but it may be because of the way we describe things or it may be for other reasons.

First of all, if people won't go to the time and trouble of getting the very best amount and type of powder, patch, lubricant, etc. for their rifle - then it won't shoot at or near MOA at 100 yards, but that doesn't mean their "offhand" rifle is not capable of shooting at or near 1 MOA at 100 yards, it just means they accept less accuracy for their intended use of the rifle.

I get the very strong impression that many people here and other places are happy to accept accuracy in their rifle that is not the best it can or should be, but is "good enough for hunting or other purposes, because they don't target shoot" with their rifles.

Of course one has to have a rifle that is in a large enough caliber to buck the wind and hold accuracy at 100 yards. I don't doubt that a .32 or .36 caliber rifle would have a difficult time holding at or near 1 MOA at 100 yard. I'm not sure about a .40 cal. rifle, as I've never owned one, but a .45 cal. long rifle can surely at least come close to it. Herb mentioned he can hit a string at 100 yards with his reproduction Hawken Rifle, means his rifle is shooting BETTER than 1 MOA.

I also know that from shooting on benches all over the country, that many people don't get the best accuracy out of their rifles even at the bench. This is normally because they are not doing something as well as they could and or don't realize how to shoot best with a rifle from a bench and/or don't have the equipment to shoot the best from the bench. I have found this true time and again with rifles I shot under or at or near 1 MOA and other people I offered to use my bench equipment and the rifle and same load - could not equal what I had just shot. My eyes have never been that good, it is just I learned how to get better accuracy from the bench than many people because I pay attention to very small details that many other people don't. Of course the folks who shoot in real bench rest competition are normally not just as good, but usually better to much betteer than I off a bench and I have learned a lot from them over the years. A bench will allow one to keep much of the human error out of shooting and help separate what the rifle can do vs what human error will cause less accuracy, but it is only as good as what the person knows about shooting and how to use the bench to the best advantage. I included this paragraph mainly because good bench rest technique will help you determine CLOSE to what a rifle is capable of shooting, but is only as good as the person using the bench.

Now even if a rifle can shoot under, near or slightly larger than 1 MOA at 100 yards doesn't mean one can do it regularly or often from the Offhand/Standing position. That takes great eyesight or properly corrected vision, really good marksmanship technique and LOTS AND LOTS OF PRACTICE AND DRY FIRING. Most folks don't have the time to shoot that much or have never had the kind of marksmanship training to shoot that well and that includes even some of the best rifle shots in the country. Still, that doesn't mean the rifles are not capable of near or at 1 MOA at 100 yards, it just means most of us can't shoot them offhand/standing that well.

I was amazed at what the Hawken and other shooters could do at 100 yards with cross sticks and other kinds of competition the first time I went to the Primitive Range at Friendship in the spring shoot of 1974. This in part because they did take the time to get the very best accuracy load for their rifles. Fortunately, I got some great tips from them and other shooters who won on the primitive range at Friendship over the next six years, though I was not good enough to place high enough in matches to even mention in those days.

Though I did not become a Member of the U.S. International Muzzleloading Team until the mid 1990's, I knew a pretty fair number of them from Friendship and NSSA shooting beginning in the mid 70's. The reason I mention them is because they used original flintlock and percussion rifles and pistols. True, most were from the early to mid 1800's, but they were mechanically and technologically the same in most cases as 18th century rifles, except of course for percussion ignition system guns. Because the shooters took the time and trouble to get the very best loads for their guns and because they were some excellent shooters, they shot targets most of us are not able to equal. That tells me a lot about the period rifled rifles and pistols as to what they were capable of shooting, even if the people shooting them were not up to what the rifles/pistols were capable of in accuracy back in the day and now.

Of course, we are still limited in the accuracy of a round ball rifle at longer ranges with smaller calibers and to some extent by period sights. A significant part of the reason the Baker Rifle was accurate at such long range in the period was because it was .62 caliber. Then as now with a round ball rifle, you have to go bigger in caliber for better long range shooting.

Gus
 
Artificer said:
Spence,

Didn't you have a quote about a Hunter from Kentucky who could hit a Silver Dollar almost every time at 100 yards from the standing/offhand position? Maybe very early 19th century at the latest?

Gus


I live near three rivers and two lakes all famous for fishing. You should hear some of the 'quotes' from fishermen about the size of the fish they caught or that got away. :doh:
 
This is normally because they are not doing something as well as they could and or don't realize how to shoot best with a rifle from a bench and/or don't have the equipment to shoot the best from the bench.

You said quite a bit I could quote and agree with. As far as 100 yard moa with an offhand style rifle, I believe that can be proven/disproven only with extensive testing using a machine rest and many shots.
I bragged recently about winning a 100 yard bench match with my 'half-breed' target rifle. If you will bear with me repeating, this rifle is a standard TC 'hawken' with a .45 cal. Douglas mounted barrel and target style peep sights. Several years ago I won a 100 yard bench match shooting against genuine heavy bench rifles. Recently, I won the 100 yard bench match at my club but the other competitors were using their offhand rifles. This rifle can be shot offhand and I used it as such many times in past years. At that match I may have been the only shooter to have all five shots on paper. Not a bad group either. Score of 42 but group was slightly to the 9 o'clock. I'll adjust the sights before the next shoot. My point here is, I believe most of my friends at my club, and most shooters at other matches, simply have never done the discipline we preach here so often of testing various loads, lubes, ball sizes and etc. at the bench to find what groups best. My rifle has had many thousands of rounds put through it at hundreds of matches over a period of almost 50 years. I know this rifle and how it performs. My fellow competitors, IMHO, don't really know theirs. They get decent scores shooting offhand but even at 50 yards their groups fall apart. They have never worked up the load that works best for their rifle. So, I do agree with you...sorta. But without extensive testing we cannot know if an ml prb is capable of moa accuracy at 100 yards.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
Artificer said:
Spence,

Didn't you have a quote about a Hunter from Kentucky who could hit a Silver Dollar almost every time at 100 yards from the standing/offhand position? Maybe very early 19th century at the latest?

Gus


I live near three rivers and two lakes all famous for fishing. You should hear some of the 'quotes' from fishermen about the size of the fish they caught or that got away. :doh:

I agree we should at original quotes for what they are and in that case, it did say the Hunter only offered to shoot that well for betting purposes. Sounds to me like he was a "Ringer" and just waiting to take money off the richer looking tourist, who did not realize he was that good of a shot.

This particularly so because the person who wrote the journal also talked about himself putting a half dollar in the fork of a stick and sticking it in the ground and another Older Hunter did hit it at 50 yards and won the bet against the writer of the journal.

Not sure of the chronological order of the two events, but if the guy writing the journal had already LOST the bet on that one first; he would not have been very likely later on, to have taken the bet of the well renowned Hunter who offered to shoot the Dollar Coin at 100 yards.

Gus
 
He’d already won the first shooting contest””hit the dead center of the bullseye at 100 yards. Even Little Rock’s best marksman had fallen to his superior shooting. “A chance shot,” someone muttered.
“Chance nothing,” he thought to himself. “I shoot like this five times out of six.”
And so it was that Davy Crockett found himself in a second competition with the good folks of the town of Little Rock. He raised “Old Betsy” to his shoulder and gently squeezed the trigger. Cr-a-a-ack!
“It’s a miss,” shouted someone in the crowd. By now, competitors and spectators alike had gathered round to inspect the target. “It’s a dead miss,” crowed another. Clearly, they thought, this visitor’s skill as a marksman had been overrated.
“No way,” thought Davy. He stepped forward to examine the target for himself, working his way carefully from top to bottom. Finally he focused on the bull’s eye, letting his finger trace the edges of the bullet hole from his earlier shot. Bingo. He allowed himself but a small smile before explaining to the crowd that his second shot had followed in the exact tracks of his first.
“That’s impossible,” said one of the marksman. “Couldn’t happen,” said another.
“Tell you what,” said Davy, “search the hole. If you don’t find two bullets, you can use me as the target for the next round.” So search they did, only to find two bullets, one behind the other””exactly as Davy had said, because he had clandestinely placed a second bullet in the hole while pretending to search the target.
 
Back
Top