Long range shooting

[LongWalker]

I am also building a muzzle loader bullet rifle, a 45 with vernier sights. It is primarily for hunting but since I now have access to a 300 yard range I will sight it in to that range and see what I can do. The one variable no one seems to mention is the quality of the powder 250 years ago. I have in the past shot 5 shot 1 inch groups at 100 yards. but not having access to a range over 100 yards was unable to try longer ranges. I do believe given the powder available today with good sights it is possible to shoot a tight group with a patched round ball at 200 yards. Doubt that a round ball would be very deadly at that range though.

The tests I wrote of were done with some of the crappiest powder of the late 20th century, but still the velocities were in a 25 fps window with each. I was just hitting the PODR with those powders in that old Dickert. From a prone position, shooting in the early morning calm just after sunrise, I could keep 10 shots in a group about 4-5" high and about 8-9" wide (there's never no wind). And that was with a 200 year old rifle, with sights that I struggled with.

In my .54 flinter, I could get another 100 fps using the first lot of Swiss to hit the US. Using that rifle and load, with sights were set up for my eyes, group sizes shot prone at 200 yards were about 3" high and 7" wide. Significant, but not a major improvement.

Don't bet on a round ball not being deadly at 200 yards, or even 400. At 200 yards, that load in the Dickert would shoot almost through the chest of a buck mule deer. At 400 yards the ball would travel through about 2" of seasoned white pine. (Yes, I literally shot at the broad side of a barn. In my defense, I usually hit it! The barn was slated for destruction, so the owner let me use it for a backstop for some experiments.)

 

[nhmoose]

Being a long range shooter(1000+ yards) for many years with modern rifles, I have spent some time applying the same principles with my 58 cal Kibler Colonial loaded with LRB’s out to 200 yards. With careful attention to load accuracy/consistency, wind conditions, and sight/target acquisition, I have been able to hit 18”steel targets with high consistency at 200 yards. IMO, the primitive sights are the limiting factor beyond 100 yards.

View attachment 177476View attachment 177477

Great group, up 5 1/4 it would be for a competition shootee it would have been a fantastic group, way better than the 35 it is. just busting them from a line shooter.

 

[rusticbob]

We always here about the incredible shots that the old timers made with their long rifles (Daniel Boone or Timothy Murphy). We have all seen and accomplished some crazy lucky shots but my question to you is, outside of lucky shots and exceptional individuals, how often do you think there were guys that really could shoot reliably at 200 yards+. I can shoot at a "red coat" sized target for fun, but hitting anything reliably with precision at that distance is a little beyond me. I ring the gong sometimes, but it is rare enough to keep it fun.

You never mentioned if these long shots were with a rest, or offhand. Big difference! I shoot a lot, but I still struggle with offhand at long range.

 

[LongWalker]

I know they relied on these rifles for their living and life, but I fail to believe these guys could truly dedicate the time to load development that we do. We mess around with different powders and all crazy manner of loading techniques. I am not saying they didnt put time into it and achieve very good accuracy.

In the tests I mentioned, I selected ball diameter based on an available original mould, used a linen table runner from Goodwill that felt about the right thickness and weave, and used what powder was on hand. Load work up consisted of firing ten shot groups from a rest at 50 yards, increasing powder charge 10 grains by volume for each group, and watching as group size shrank then increased. I used the load that gave the smallest group with the first powder; for the second powder, I repeated the 10 shot groups to find the load that hit the same point of impact. Took an afternoon, and burned up maybe a pound of powder total. After the fact, I mic'd the patches and balls, slugged the bore, chrono'd the loads, etc.

None of my load workup was beyond expectations of the day. As @Dphar1950 has pointed out repeatedly, shooting competition was a serious sport of the day: I would expect any serious shooter then to do as much or more work-up as I did.

When I originally posted the experiment on ALR, @Artificer mentioned a friend who had acquired an original rifle back in the '80s that had been retro-fitted with original sights, and that got me to wondering. . . always a bad thing, more below.

2) The Guns:
a) Round balls:
As many have pointed out round balls have a poor ballistic coefficient. They bleed velocity quickly and are sensitive to wind. The rifles we hunt with often have sights that offer less precision. In my opinion precise shot placement at small targets beyond 125 is very difficult.

I think @SciAggie is on to something with the mention of the sights. The sights on the original Dickert I used were "less than optimal" for my eyes. Aiming past about 75 yards required holding over, and repeatability was an issue. As I previously posted, my hits at each range (for a total of 40 rounds fired at each range, 20 with each load) were:

200 yard supported offhand: 31 hits
200 yard prone: 35hits
300 yard prone: 20 hits (Note: I mis-typed this on my original post)
400 yard prone: 4 hits

I kept Gus's comment about his friend's rifle in mind. A few years later, I ran across a well-worn .50 cal TVM "late lancaster" rifle that had been fitted with modern sights. After some conversation and horse-trading, the Lancaster's owner had a .32 caliber underhammer and I had a Late Lancaster and a set of sights off a Martini .22LR competition rifle. I fit the Martini sights to the Lancaster, and repeated the tests.

As I recall, Gus had mentioned his friend, using the Olympic sights, was getting 5 hits on a man-sized silhouette out of 6 shots, out to something like 500 yards. I didn't do that well, but at 300 yards prone I had 29/40, and at 400 yards I got it up to 19/40. I definitely think the sights were a significant factor, as other than adjusting the sights for each range I tried to otherwise duplicate the conditions of the original experiment (same powder, ball .015" under bore diameter, same patch/lube).

Results were more-telling at 200 yards. Once I had my sights adjusted for the range, I went 40/40 both supported offhand and prone. I'm attributing this to the sights, as once I had elevation set, aiming was as repeatable as the wind would allow.

If anyone is interested in using this as a starting point, I can dig out my notes on the research design and shooting protocol I used. I'm not going to repeat the tests, though I'll probably put my personal rifles through a modified version just to see how they do.

 

[M. De Land]

In the tests I mentioned, I selected ball diameter based on an available original mould, used a linen table runner from Goodwill that felt about the right thickness and weave, and used what powder was on hand. Load work up consisted of firing ten shot groups from a rest at 50 yards, increasing powder charge 10 grains by volume for each group, and watching as group size shrank then increased. I used the load that gave the smallest group with the first powder; for the second powder, I repeated the 10 shot groups to find the load that hit the same point of impact. Took an afternoon, and burned up maybe a pound of powder total. After the fact, I mic'd the patches and balls, slugged the bore, chrono'd the loads, etc.

None of my load workup was beyond expectations of the day. As @Dphar1950 has pointed out repeatedly, shooting competition was a serious sport of the day: I would expect any serious shooter then to do as much or more work-up as I did.

When I originally posted the experiment on ALR, @Artificer mentioned a friend who had acquired an original rifle back in the '80s that had been retro-fitted with original sights, and that got me to wondering. . . always a bad thing, more below.


I think @SciAggie is on to something with the mention of the sights. The sights on the original Dickert I used were "less than optimal" for my eyes. Aiming past about 75 yards required holding over, and repeatability was an issue. As I previously posted, my hits at each range (for a total of 40 rounds fired at each range, 20 with each load) were:

200 yard supported offhand: 31 hits
200 yard prone: 35hits
300 yard prone: 20 hits (Note: I mis-typed this on my original post)
400 yard prone: 4 hits

I kept Gus's comment about his friend's rifle in mind. A few years later, I ran across a well-worn .50 cal TVM "late lancaster" rifle that had been fitted with modern sights. After some conversation and horse-trading, the Lancaster's owner had a .32 caliber underhammer and I had a Late Lancaster and a set of sights off a Martini .22LR competition rifle. I fit the Martini sights to the Lancaster, and repeated the tests.

As I recall, Gus had mentioned his friend, using the Olympic sights, was getting 5 hits on a man-sized silhouette out of 6 shots, out to something like 500 yards. I didn't do that well, but at 300 yards prone I had 29/40, and at 400 yards I got it up to 19/40. I definitely think the sights were a significant factor, as other than adjusting the sights for each range I tried to otherwise duplicate the conditions of the original experiment (same powder, ball .015" under bore diameter, same patch/lube).

Results were more-telling at 200 yards. Once I had my sights adjusted for the range, I went 40/40 both supported offhand and prone. I'm attributing this to the sights, as once I had elevation set, aiming was as repeatable as the wind would allow.

If anyone is interested in using this as a starting point, I can dig out my notes on the research design and shooting protocol I used. I'm not going to repeat the tests, though I'll probably put my personal rifles through a modified version just to see how they do.

Nice work and thanks for the valuable data !