longer range hunting

[Rifleman1776]

It's one thing to "lob" a shot in to a given distance, but would want the tightest arc I could find in case that 200 yard shot is really only 170 or 220 which could mean a very bad hit.

Yes. And that is the point most wannabe long range ml shooters do not understand. The rainbow like trajectory of an ml ball means it is falling onto it's final impact point, not at it. A range difference of just a few feet from where the rifle is sighted will mean the ball will fall in front of or behind the target animal. It just ain't practical to even consider long range shots for hunting with a traditional style ml rifle.
I limit my range to 100 yards. My experience tells me my .45 cal. rifles just simply 'run out of legs' beyond 100 yards. My old tore up shoulders don't allow me to shoot my .54 cal. Jaeger as much as I would like so I don't know where it's legs give up but I still wouldn't push past that 100 yard mark.

 

[Spikebuck]

To anyone that has historical knowledge of what the Natives of the East shot for distances....

I have read in several sources, including Alexander's Gunsmith of Grenville County, that Natives preferred the longer barrels because once game got more scarce and more spooky, they were shooting at 200 yards. At this time period, I'm assuming this would have been with round balls and rifles in the 50 to 54 caliber range. I assume they were also successful at it.

If it's true they did this, with the right skill and practice and load development, couldn't it be done today? I'm not advocating or condemning...just asking about the possibilities based on historical happenings.

 

[galamb]

I think we have to be careful when trying to draw a parallel between historical "hide hunters", who I also have read took in the "thousands" of deer hides for trade back to Europe.

And we have to face the fact, they weren't out there "ethically" trying to take a single deer during a very well regulated season - it was most likely more of a "spot/point/shoot/skin/sell or trade" proposition.

So what if their "wounding rate" was three or four times the kill rate - there was lots of deer and no regulations.

So yes, I agree that if you lived with a rifle in your hand you absolutely could get very good with it - know it's limitations and capabilities intimately, after all your life may depend on it, but I don't think we can draw a parallel line between that "type of shooting" and a guy trying to fill a deer tag during the season.

 

[chickenmcnasty]

I can and do use the muzzleloader where I bow hunt, but that is a different part of the state with a completely different environment.

Lotta guys live in close country and are darned good at hunting it. But that's their frame of reference, and they make the sad mistake of assuming their expertise can be applied in open country.

Louis and Clark and lots that followed them across the plains made the same mistake. Many ended up eating shoe leather, and more than a few starved to death. You happen to live right smack dab in the middle of that kind of country, and might even come across their graves in your wanderings.

Ignore the "experts" trying to apply their narrow frame of reference and inexperience to the facts of plains hunting. They're keyboardists and not plains hunters, the shoe leather eaters of today.

The challenge of long range shooting on the plains was met during the time frame covered by this site, and the pre-cartridge buffalo market hunters actually thrived with muzzleloaders. You'll do well to look at the examples of how they overcame their Eastern limitations to do so. Idaho Ron has done his homework too, and his posts over the years will be a treasure trove for you.

Not saying anyone is or isn't a good hunter. All I know is I also live in Kansas in the plains area as the original poster does and not to far from each other. I have gotten 3 deer with the longbow, and one with the flintlock during the early muzzeloading season. Farthest shot was 35 yards with flinter. Yes theres miles and miles of open area with rolling hills and flat land. Hunting here can be tough but you have to think it out 1. Forget hunting the deer in the open fields and stalking them. 2. Find where they bed and where they feed. 3. Find the thickets lets face it the bucks have to rub on trees wheres theres trees theres bucks(yes there actually is trees) 4. Hunt the low ground draws/fence rows/wind breaks 5. Use haybales which are everywhere here for a blind. 6. Pop-up blind in the travel cooridors the deer have them they don't just wander aimlessly through open fields. 7. Creek beds with or without water are great aimbush spots 8. Isolated clumps of trees in open fields the deer WILL pass by them almost everytime 9. With permission from farmer or your own property dig a pit blind and brush it in some creates a low profile blind in open terrain. 10. make a bait pile of food plot with any kind of blind available try a tri-pod blind works in Texas or box blind *If ya say its impossible then ya have already given up* Everyone told me I needed to use a compound and be able to shoot 50 yards or better to get a deer here in Kansas when I moved here. Got 3 with longbow all 10-15 yards this year. But I spend all year in the woods patterning, tracking, watching the deer, I know where they sleep, where they eat, where they go when pressured, where they go when weathers bad, when they are moving both day and night. Right now I have 32 trail cams up and 1 doe tag left and will likely fill that tomorrow morning opening day of gun season, but will not hunt the normal spots instead opting for the escape routes they travel when pressured like they will be tomorrow morning. Not saying I am a pro hunters but saying you can't get close to a deer is just odd to me. P.S. I am originally from Michigan, lived in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, and TN as well and hunting is different everywhere you go its also pretty much the same you have to adapt slightly and maybe change you plan of thinking but you can get close to deer, if not then you need to study the sport more.

A lot of it has to do with access. If I had permission on the few properties that have wooded areas I would be in business, but I don't. It's very open pasture type land. Popup blinds will not work and digging holes will be out of the question due to cattle being on the ground at different times of the year. Again, I also hunt with a recurve in different parts of the state so I understand what you are trying to say. But this is not a question of hunting prowess but a capability of some of these firearms.

 

[stinkyfeet]

I understand and not trying to give ya a hard time. If the long range muzzleloader doesn't work out I have a .50 caliber BMG bushmaster bolt action u can use its good out to around 1800 meters. It has a bit of recoil but manageable. It will get the job done at any range.

 

[galamb]

I think you are asking the right questions and getting opinions. The rifle that may be capable of what you want just may not be something you were thinking about/considering in the first place.

You would definitely have to shoot something other than a roundball.

You may also need to go with a heavier/longer barrel.

You might want to try a google search for "the mathematical shooter". It's mostly a collection of formula's etc but can give you somewhere to start with twist rates based on bullet length etc.

Can't remember right off it also contains calculations for barrel length to get the maximum based on powder charge.

And while a bunch of math/science is no substitute for "live testing", it could give you a decent starting point for your testing.

You might find that (on paper) a 50 cal 1:28 twist with .006 rifling and a barrel length of 38" with a powder charge of 120 grains of FFF black shooting a 1.115" projectile is "mathematically" capable of what you are looking for.

(certainly beyond my interest or understanding at this point, but have done some reading)

 

[chickenmcnasty]

A friend of mine brought his 50 bmg out with us last year. Unfortunately he forgot the bolt in his safe and was forced to use a .243 instead

 

[Idaho Ron]

This reply is not to anyone specifically.
Getting close enough to just kill a deer is not hard and can be done almost anywhere with enough time and persistence. I know, I have shot mule deer, elk and antelope with bows. I know it can be done at short range I've done it. In fact I have killed, and seen several Antelope killed under 100 yards using blinds and decoys. But like was said hunting prowess was not the question.

I know when I was setting my rifles up to shoot long range it was not to hunt just "A" deer. I wanted the ability to potentially shoot "THE" deer of a life time. We all know that there are cases where you just can't get closer to the animal in front of you. In our case it might be a canyon, or a deep draw. Maybe there are other animals between you and the one you want. I wasn't going to be the guy that said I saw a dandy but could not shoot because I was at 150 and I can't shoot past 100. That to me is failure and that is not an option for me. I have shot way more game under 100 than over but I still want that ability to reach out there and get it done. If just filling a tag with a doe or small buck was the whole point well, I would not have spent a ton of money and time to improve my skills to shoot long range.

Some of our hunts take years to draw. It took me 10 years to get my last Antelope tag. The last time I drew the tag I had this year for deer was 1992. Some of our bull elk tags might be once in a lifetime. We have many deer tags that are statistically once in two lifetimes or more. When I get the chance to go on a hunt that is for all practical purposes once in a lifetime I don't want my ability to take that shot in question. That does nothing for confidence and a person with no confidence in his ability or gun has no place in the field. I understand limitations, we all have them and accept them for our sport. Why not work on reducing those limitations to raise the chance of success? Ron

 

[nkbj]

Extending ones effective range from 100 yards to 150 yards increases the area effectiveness by about 125%. That's an important consideration no matter what you're hunting. http://www.timesexaminer.com/histo...with-rifle-used-by-revenge-sniper-jack-hinson-

 

[Billnpatti]

I think that when we say that game was successfully hunted at longer ranges by the Native Indians, one thing we must keep in mind was that "the Noble Savage" was not concerned with making a bad shot and its effect on the animal only that he shot as few times as possible and was successful in bringing home food for his family. No concern was given to whether or not he wounded an animal and it got away to slowly die. The welfare of the animal was of no concern, only that he fed his family. That has all changed and now we are enlightened enough to not to want to see an animal suffer a lingering and painful death. For that reason, we want to make sure that not only can we hit the animal in a kill zone but that the death is quick and as lacking in pain as possible. Being able to put the bullet where we want it to go is no longer the only consideration, it must have the kinetic energy to kill swiftly.

I fully understand that the question that was asked was if one could come up with a load that would enable a shooter to hit a target with any accuracy at long ranges. So long as the target is not a living thing, I see absolutely no reason not to try to come up with such a load for your rifle and it is interesting fun to develop and shoot such a load at ranges over 200 yards but only at non-living targets. With that proviso, I say go for it and keep us posted.

NMLRA has long range matches and those who shoot in them will have a lot of excellent information for you. While I have been to Friendship many times and have watched a few of the long range matches, I am not sure just what the longest range is for muzzleloaders. I think they shoot out to about 400 to 450 yards. I know the BPC matches are shot out to 1,000 yards. The 500 to 1,000 matches are shot at an old military base near Columbus, Indiana because the range at Friendship is a maximum of something just shy of 500 yards (about 475 yards, I think).

There are some long range shooters out there and I think contacting NMLRA would be a good place to start looking for them. They will have a lot of information to help you in your quest.

Oops, my bad, spikebuck, only the first paragraph was to you the last part of the post was to chickenmcnasty .

 

[nkbj]

Well, I just don't know what the native were thinking about. Except of course that momma wanted pretty baubles and daddy better trade for them.

 

[Billnpatti]

Well, by deductive reasoning, :hmm: I can tell you a couple things that they were thinking about and they were food and war. It is apparent that they seemed to enjoy both. I certainly understand their affinity for food but war just sucks and I have no idea why they seemed to be so fond of it. :idunno:

 

[rodwha]

"I think that when we say that game was successfully hunted at longer ranges by the Native Indians, one thing we must keep in mind was that "the Noble Savage" was not concerned with making a bad shot and its effect on the animal only that he shot as few times as possible and was successful in bringing home food for his family. No concern was given to whether or not he wounded an animal and it got away to slowly die. The welfare of the animal was of no concern, only that he fed his family."

I'm not sure if this is a fair statement, especially for the whole of American Indians. From what little I know they had a great respect for nature. On the other hand we know the plains Indians who hunted the buffalo and used arrows weren't so humane as a buffalo couldn't be taken down so easily. I'm not sure what else they had to hunt, but the antelope certainly would be an impossible game animal to hunt in such a fashion as they did.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Having a reverence for nature is ≠ necessarily to being "humane" in the sense of the 21st Century. When you need food or your offspring will die, you will use methods of harvest that today might not be thought ethical.

Next, personal accounts need to be take with the proverbial grain of salt. Even in an old growth section of a forest, being able to see 200 yards to spot a deer, and then having a straight, unimpeded flight path to said animal would be rare indeed. So either such a shot was done in a meadow, or the range estimate is woefully inaccurate.

You also have the misperception that readers often seem to get, that as the natives are recorded as having done so, they then always shot at deer at 200 yards away, and that they always hit the animal, and always recovered it. (This may be due to a misconception of the observer as well.) Add to that the fact that pacing over rough or very uneven ground skews pacing off distances compared to the line of flight of a projectile (by as much as 50%), and you have problems believing that it was the "norm" to harvest game in the woodlands at 200 yards.


LD

 

[Dphar]

Traditional MLs are best limited to 120 yards or less.
If you shoot conicals the trajectory is so high that you need a range finder, adjustable sights and a table of elevations for ranges past point blank which is usually 100 yards or less for deer sized animals. Round balls shoot flatter.
Still its best to stay under 120. A round ball rifle of 50-54 caliber will shoot flat enough, if loaded to 1800-1900 fps, and zeroed at 110-120 yards to allow killing deer to 120-130 with no hold over or under. Past this it becomes increasingly risky as the becomes extreme past 150 yards.
If I need to shoot farther than 130 I would use my 260 Remington. It good past 400.
With a range finder....

Dan

 

[fleener]

your windage is way off. 10mph cross wind with a full value (9 or 3 o'clock) will move my .45 540 grain bullet less than 2"

Fleener

 

[Dphar]

I hunt areas like this.

And this.

This deer

And this one

Were killed at a point in the right side of the frame of the second picture, one on the face of the hill and the doe behind the hill. Range was 60 yards for the doe, less for the buck.
But one MUST know the area, be stealthy and being lucky also helps.
The average ML shooter has a very poor chance of killing a deer at 200 with a traditional ML since very few have shot at this distance enough to really understand. Then there is the wind. I once shot at a deer where I thought I had nearly zero wind. She was across a coolee, maybe 120 yards. Fired and the ball drift completely off the deer by over a foot of the butt no less. After I reloaded I headed back toward the ranch house which was a mile of so behind where the deer had been standing. Within 15 yards the wind was blowing HARD left to right up the east/west Coolee
At least I knew why I missed the deer. So its not easy. So far as making long shots even with a BPCR (think bulleted ML)? Some reading of old journals and such will show they got as close as they could. Even highly experienced hunters would sometimes have to have a sighter to get "on".
So first its generally not necessary to shoot all that far even for spot and stalk hunters like myself. Second I tend to choose places that are compatible with MLs when I hunt with a ML. This can be either on the timber or on the plains so long as I know how to hunt the area. If I KNOW I am hunting hayfield whitetails and the ranges are going to start at 150-200 and go out from there. I leave the ML home or in the pickup.

Dan

 

[rodwha]

I still don't buy that as a blanket statement. I think, as we do today, they would shoot for what brought down their quarry as easily as possible, which is known as "humane" or "ethical" today. As these people lived by their weapons they were certainly more accomplished and knew what worked and how to go about it.

No doubt things happen and poor shots were made. And no doubt, with the primitive weapons they began with, had to do whatever they could when it came to larger critters such as the buffalo or bears.

I think it presumptuous to make a statement that "No concern was given to whether or not he wounded an animal and it got away to slowly die," especially speaking for them all.

 

[galamb]

I am reading one account here:

In 1743-44 the Indians in the southern colonies of the Carolina's shipped 130,884 lbs of deer skins.

In 1744-45 it rose to 305,717 lbs.

(just for reference, a deer's hide weighs 8-9% of it's total body weight and about 70% of it's total weight can be classed as "edible" - so in the latter case those hides represent about 2.3 million pounds of deer meat)

That does not speak to "stewards of the land", and no that doesn't mean "all of them".

But make no mistake. It was most likely the hide hunters, who were driven by "commerce", who were doing most of the shooting at whatever range, and to assume that ethics somehow took precedence over the "bottom dollar" (or shilling) would be quite an assumption.

And those figures are just for the south.

 

[don hepler]

I believe todays hunter, is the best that ever lived. I grew up in the sixties and we were still using open sights. I saw, deer with legs blown off, jaws shot off, gut shot, and it was horrible. We didn't reload. We didn't understand ballistics all we wanted was to kill something. Now, we're more enlightened, we have had, loads of material to read, TV shows, videos and now the internet. We have shooting ranges, scopes, range finders, ballistic charts, programs on our "I" phone to show us where to hold. We have, the best eyeglasses, that man has ever had. I can shoot 10,000 rounds a year, if I want. I shoot muzzleloaders, because we went to far. I could select the deer, that I wanted. Even had his picture on trail camera. This year I've shot one deer, with a crossbow. Everthing else, was out of range, for a flintlock. But that's okay, I got meat, and there are a few weeks left.