• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • 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

400 yard hits with a patched round ball

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Me thinks 400 yards with the same everything Jerry,would be harder than you think.Any wind at all is going to move that low BC ball around like crazy let alone what a head wind will do to it's trajectory patch.
I've done a fair amount of 200 yard shooting with a patch round ball in .54 cal at silhouettes and a lot of competition lead bullet shooting at 200,300 and 600 yards with black powder cartridge custom rifles with long range micrometer globe sights and have a pretty fair idea of how wind effects both and what these distances look like on a marked out range.
I remain very skeptical of 400 yard shots routinely pulled off with average quality, open sighted ball shooting rifles. Mike D.
 
Like I mentioned, my roundball trajectory calculator doesn't calculate to 400 yards but if the rifle was sighted in for 200 yards and shooting a patched .570 ball at 1800 fps MV it would hit 264.7 inches (22.06 feet) below the point of aim at 380 yards.

You didn't ask but a 5 mph crosswind would deflect the roundball 67.4 inches (5.62 feet). :grin:
 
"The U.S. rifle throws a ball nearly 400 yards, but even in the hands of a good marksman it does not often hit a man at 120 yards. The Indian rifles, generally, seem to be much more accurate."

Bosworth quotes General Gaines's report to the War Department declaring that entrenched U.S. sentries were wounded, even killed, by single shots from the Seminole rifles at 400 yards.

MD says
I remain very skeptical of 400 yard shots routinely pulled off with average quality, open sighted ball shooting rifles.

Taking the report or a second handed excerpt of the report at face value, it simply states that sentries were wounded and killed by single rifle fire. It does not say how many and how often.

The first part of the quote states the service rifles of the time were capable of 400 yards but in the hands of a good marksman, routine 120 yard shots were difficult. It also states the Indian rifles seem to perform better. Most like likely the Indian rifles were longrifles.

It says what it says in summary some sentries were wounded and killed by Seminole riflemen at distances as great as 400 yards.

JD says
send enough rounds down range and they are likely to hit something.
I find this very logical, in a sense I see the rifle shots being lobbed in like artillery.

The bottom line is, I would not want to be 400 yards away from Seminoles shooting at me with longrifles. One might just connect.

As far as military cover ups that has been brought up on this thread earlier, chew on this.

Sergeant to Sentry,
Your perfectly safe here boys, there's no way they can shoot that far.
 
Yep; if it can happen it does. I don't shoot long range with a roundball but I know if I spent much time doing it and holding up enough sight to do it that I would get pretty good at it.

I had an old 1884 Springfield rifle that I gave to a brother a few years back. It had a rear leave that folded up and down that had three various sized peep holes drilled in it for long range shooting when it was in the up position. I never shot the rifle but I bet with those sights coupled with knowing my area like an indian would I could be deadly with it.

Who knows if they were that good of shots or not but it appears that they had some respect and a bit of a history of it.
 
I agree.Oaks here in the Ozarks stand 30-40 feet tall.Aim at the top of the oak hit at the bottom.At this same time sea sevice cannon shot about a mile.Any thing over 500 yards was called random shot.Smooth bore cannon,no sights,moving deck not the stuff accuracy is made of.Thats why ships closed to"Pistol Shot" and often collidded with the enemy.How so ever.HMS Sphinx was unable to catch a french prize when it lost its for topsail from a shot "Well over a mile" away.100 shots kicking up dirt on the ground might not be recalled.One shot drawing blood is one for the books.If the indian gun was a hand made rifle out of the Carolinas and not a "factory "made trade gun I spect it could out shoot the military rifles.
 
Ya know it all isn't that far fetched.
A local guy used to host a shoot at his farm place every so often, just informal "Fun Shoot"
One fall he had an old burned out 19" TV and rode his wheeler way off onto a hill in his corn field and just stopped where he felt like it.
It was a buck around to shoot at it, whoever broke the screen won the pot. Some one had a modern range finder and determined it was 268yrds.
The pot only went to $39 before it was hit, then it was hit several more times through the day once the hold point was figured out.

And all that was with just a bunch of local hicks that never practiced shooting that far.
 
Zonie said:
if the rifle was sighted in for 200 yards and shooting a patched .570 ball at 1800 fps MV it would hit 264.7 inches (22.06 feet) below the point of aim at 380 yards.
Using Hornady's calculator, assuming weight of 278 gr., diameter of .570", BC of .080, sight height of .85", MV of 1800 fps and sighted for 100 yards, it shows drop at 400 yd. is 236" or 19.6 feet. With the same numbers but sighted for 200 yards drop is 182" or 15 feet.

Spence
 
One sure way to tell, lay out at 400 yards a human silhouette target and see how you do! That will show you how deadly you are in jig time.
My guess is you will be surprised how hard it is to hit even on a perfectly calm day. If there is wind it will be very tough, especially in a 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock fishtail. Mike D.
 
Birdwatcher said:
I have to wonder what the point is even talking about these kinds of ranges. This is a sport of using a very old, antique/obsolete, technology to shoot. Wanna do the modern stuff? OK, but go do modern, we don't need or want it here.

Egad man! Why on earth not? 400-yard pot shots on a human silhouette in a controlled range setting should be an absolute hoot :grin:

Surely no more frivolous or dangerous than the way-cool blockhouse shoot relay at running Indian silhouettes at Friendship :grin:

And from another viewpoint, this was brought up here because a number of witnesses from back then state it actually happened. Surely this is of interest.

Birdwatcher

So many really wild statements in this thread I could be hours typing responses. But, yers, kinda summarized things.
First, I have done shooting at extreme ranges. Just kinda playing around with a flinter and round ball and in competition with modern pistol. Yes, a given target can be hit fairly consistently at extreme ranges with a flint rifle. After several sighting in shots one can get a 'feel' for where the ball is going to impact. There is no real sighting involved. What you are doing is more like launching a motar round.
I do a lot of Rev. period reading and have seen those comments about shots at long ranges by the Riflemen. Now, understand, second only to my religious beliefs, I think the Rev. War Rifleman is American's savior. My respect for him is boundless. :patriot:
However, having some experience with shooting and shooters, I am positive only a tiny-tiny fraction of guys with guns can estimate range at all. I once had a gun shop. On the back of a door I had several targets taped just for show. When guys started bragging about shots they had made at 'such and such' yardage I would ask them how far away those targets were. The most common response was "50 yards". Fact is they were only 25 feet.
Yes, I love the Rev. war stories about 300 yard shots and revel in them. I almost stand up and cheer and salute when I read about some British officer being taken down by a single rifle shot at 300 yards and turning the outcome of a battle in favor of the Americans. But, that's in my heart. However, in the part of my brain that deals with logic and reason, I know such shots are exxagerated by retelling at the inn over mugs of grog, time, braggadocio and just plain lying.
Again, that said, I once took at shot at a crow, using a very old, rusty single-shot .22. That crow was in a tree top so far away it was near impossible to even see. I shot, a long second later it fell. It was witnessed. That shot made me the greatest shooter ever in the eyes of those who saw it. But, it knew it made me the luckiest shooter just about ever.
This thread is fun but a lot of it is not dealing with reality.
 
I'm not convinced the Florida of yesteryear was different from that of today. I've only read 3-4 books on the various Seminole Indian Wars but in general the army had a hard time trying to find where the Seminoles were hiding. There are "open" areas but the grass is often 3-4 feet high, or higher, and you are often in a foot of water. The army might be busting through tall grass and head to a distant clump of trees where there was dry ground, or cypress head, and in that clump might be the remains of a Seminole camp, etc. So it was "open" but not the low grass plains of the west. The Dade Massacre was an ambush and I always thought it was in a wooded area. Mountain Man Jim Beckwourth actually quit the mountains and went to Florida for the 3rd Seminole War and his accounts are all jungle where you can't see much over 20-30 yards. Ponce Deleon wrote about endless jungles in most of the interior. As far as the "Prairies" the only way you could shoot is offhand. You can't lie down in the water and even if you sit the grass is too tall, so you are talking about a 400 yard shot fired in an off hand position with a muzzle loader and a PRB. The other thing, there probably were a few "Kentucky" longrifles among the Seminoles, I'm not saying there weren't, however most of those rifles had small sights, you can't raise the front sight high enough in the rear notch to aim at a 400 yard target- you start seing the end of the barrel. So you would have to "guess the shot and if you miscalculate the range by ten feet at around 400 yards the bullet drop will cause you to miss the target.
Obviously if you shoot in the general direction of a man the ball has to go SOMEWHERE, sure it might hit the guy. That doesn't mean you can reliably hit a target at a range of around 400 yards with a muzzle loader fitted with open sights, firing at PRB, in an offhand position, at an estimated range.
 
There is no doubt that shooting at those ranges would require sights that allowed the shooter to raise the front sight and still be able to view the target area. It would be alot like lobbing a shot into the target. Making the shot offhand does make it harder to make. It's not a precise aim; it's a walk it into the target kind of shot.

If it were done where dust or dirt could be seen where it hits then it would be much easier to get a bead on where to hold for the next shot. Grassland would make it much harder.
 
[
Obviously their pagan war gods were blessing them Seminoles. :grin:

If this thread started with the likes of a Daniel Boone claiming that shot, prob'ly there'd be far less skepticism.

There's a major misconception pertaining to the technology of the Indians all across the Frontier period.

Go clear back to King Phillip's War in New England (1675), the first major bloodletting, half the towns in the colony attacked, hundreds of colonists thousands of Indians dead before it was all over.

The tools of choice of the Indians? Knifes, hatchets and muskets. A major cause of the war?

Hogs.

Yep hogs, there were so many feral hogs that the Indians had largely switched over to a hog-based economy and a major source of friction was Indian hogs underselling the competition in local markets.

Not yer stereotypical Indian War.

Jump forward nearly 100 years to the F&I War. Robert Rogers and his famous raid on the Abenakis (the baddest guys on the block at that time) at their town of St. Francis.

St Francis had a church and houses of sawn timber, a school, and the Chief and his wife were both White, adopted tribal members.

'Nother generation the Rev, War. Iroquois towns on a technological parity with their White Frontier neighbors. Sawn timbers, stone chimneys, cabins, fences, livestock, ploughs, and in the case of the Oneidas, Samuel Kirlands famous church.

Ten years later 800 Americans under St. Clair wiped out on the Wabash by an Indian confederation led by the Miami Chief Little Turtle. The place where the American army was heading to burn was the Miami "Indian Town" of Kekionga.

According to Alan W. Ekhert Kekionga at that time had sawn plank sidewalks, trading posts, a smithy two saloons and a whorehouse. Little Turtle hisself lived in a two story sawn-timber house and entertained guests on fine china while someone played his piano.

A generation later Andy Jackson invades Creek country after a bunch of Indians killed a bunch of White people at Ft Mims. Except the leader of the Indians, William Weatherford, was 7/8th White and Mims, whose land the fort was built on, was half Creek. In fact there was prob'ly as much Indian blood inside Fort Mims as there was outside it, the leading Creeks at that time living on plantations, keeping slaves, and breeding fine race horses, while STILL showing up tattoed and in elaborate native garb in contemporary paintings.

Twenty years after that, the Cherokees got a constitution, schools, courts, jails a written language and their own newspaper, the Creeks not far behind. Worth noting that possibly the richest man in America at that time was a Cherokee Chief “Crazy James” Vann, after his death in a bar fight came his son “Rich James” Vann, who eventually blew himself up racing his steamboat on the Ohio (only part recovered was his arm, in a tree, identified by his diamond ring.

Meanwhile the Seminoles, essentially Creeks, down in Florida derived income to buy their clothing, tools and weapons by trading deer skins, cow hides, honey and agricultural produce. Worth digressing on the volume of the Indian trade and why it was important in our history. In the 1740's the Cherokees were trading around 140,000 deerskins a year to the British at Savannah, twenty years later the Indians on the Ohio collectively trading nearly 300,000 deer skins a year at Fort Pitt (if they really did apologize to everything they killed, they musta spent a bunch of time doing so) TONS of trade goods, including weapons going inland, passing through the hands of Indian middlemen.

Likewise, Bent's Fort, 1840's.... TONS of trade goods on flatboats going upstream in exchange for hundreds of thousands of buffalo hide collected by Comanches, Cheyennes and others. As as with Indians elsewhere, profound changes in society if only to accumulate the labor to dress all those hides.

I dunno the religious habits of the Seminoles in 1836, I do know by that time that the Eastern tribes must have been about the most heavily evangelized people in America.

But, specific to this battle, as will be seen, General Gaines likely weren't expecting to be shot at by people armed with sticks and stones, in fact he would know better than MOST Americans exactly who he was dealing with.

Birdwatcher
 
At such ranges the follow through to produce identical barrel movement from shot to shot becomes hugely important. Lighter weight large bore rifles are of course the worse with small bore heavy rifles being less effected. What do you suppose the Seminoles were shooting?
 
Is this a discussion about whether ANYONE can make that shot at 400 yards or is it something about whether native peoples are as good a shot with a rifle as those of European ancestry? I'm confused. My views are that such a shot is not reliably possible no matter who is doing the shooting. As far as the ethnic aspect, Delawares in the Rocky Mountains used rifles and were as good as anyone else in marksmanship. I don't think that race is an issue.
 
On the dry ground. I agree. Elmer Keith made a 600 yard shot with a handgun on a turkey sized target. BUT...if you read what he wrote about it, he had a spotter and the front sight on the revolver was modified for such shooting. He missed a couple of times and the spotter could see clouds of dust where the bullet was hitting and told him where he was off. Thereafter if he took his time and used a pack as a rest to steady the gun, he could hit the turkey sized target about one in three times. Still pretty incredible. About a year ago the record for a long range sniper hit was made by a Canadian in Afganistan- I think it was a half mile- maybe farther, he had a special 50 caliber rifle and a spotter and missed a couple of times but the spotter saw dust getting kicked up and "walked" the shooter into the proper aim.
So...on a 400 yard shot with a PRB. I guess never say never but if someone in the Army was contending that such shots were routinely being made by the Seminoles and they were hitting the Army sentries, etc- to me at least- that doesn't seem possible.
 
Not to keep on..but...I'm also wondering about the original quote on U.S. soldiers with the U.S. rifle not being able to hit anything at 125 yards. What rifle would that have been? Hall? I thought most of the soldiers had a version of the 1816 U.S. musket?
 
crockett said:
Elmer Keith made a 600 yard shot with a handgun on a turkey sized target
It was a wounded Deer and an unmodified 44mag.


About a year ago the record for a long range sniper hit was made by a Canadian in Afganistan- I think it was a half mile- maybe farther,
The longest confirmed sniper kill(s) are now 2.47KM made by a Brit and a 338 Lapua.
That's just over a mile and a half.

It kinda helps to make a point with facts when the facts are right,, :idunno:
 
I don't think that the native people were predisposed to better shooting. I just think they were trying to kill something at long range and they tried until they connected. Some people display talents far beyond what the normal individual can do and shooting is just one of those things.
 
George said:
Zonie said:
if the rifle was sighted in for 200 yards and shooting a patched .570 ball at 1800 fps MV it would hit 264.7 inches (22.06 feet) below the point of aim at 380 yards.
Using Hornady's calculator, assuming weight of 278 gr., diameter of .570", BC of .080, sight height of .85", MV of 1800 fps and sighted for 100 yards, it shows drop at 400 yd. is 236" or 19.6 feet. With the same numbers but sighted for 200 yards drop is 182" or 15 feet.

Spence


To me the proofs' in the puddin'!
In a perfect no wind condition with enough practice I think the shot would be easier than most here think.

Jerry stated he has hit a gong at 284 yds and witnessed one hit at 325 yds. with a TC .50 cal.

It would be a great shot for Mr. Flintlock on Impossible Shots.
Sorry George :doh: :stir: :shake:
 
Back
Top