loooooooooong range gun

[arilar]

KanawhaRanger,
Euro is even more worth than dollar at the time!! About 10 years back I shot with an original Withworth. I used a cylindrical Lyman-bullet from mold that came with a P-H Henry-rifled Withworth that I had far back. I also used paper-patched hexagonal bullets from a brass-mold from Dyson. A lot of fun. Also had the third mold that Leon ever made for hexagonal bullets. If I recall I bought it 1994. Gave the mould away to a friend that got an original Whitworth (sold mine some years back). My best results on 100-200-300 meters range was achieved with the Lyman, cylindric bullet!! Havent shot on longer distances. Hard to find a range.
ARILAR :: :thumbsup:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Arilar,

I thought I had heard the euro was worth more. So, the mold would probably cost me about $400.00 with shipping, etc. wouldn't it? Arrrgghh! I'll stick with my 560gr. cylindricals. I have one each of the short and long pattern hex bullets that I believe were cast from original molds. I'm keeping them as collectables. Who knows, I may find somebody with the skills to make a mold using them as templates.

My Parker-Hale is one of the early repros and I carried it for years as a reenactor. I had fired it with live rounds a few times during this period and put it up. I have recently been stricken with the urge to see what I could really do with it, especially after reading these posts on the Forum. I shot it some Saturday after our regular match at 100 yds. but the best I could do was about a six inch group. Some of that can be attributed to fatigue, but mostly was due to poor sighting on my part. The gun shoots very high and I had previously adjusted the post in the globe sight to compensate. When I went to lower it since I had reduced the powder charge I realized that I didn't bring a small enough screwdriver to fit. I may machine a new front sight for it and I know I need to make a new cross blade with a smaller notch for the rear. If I can get tuned in to a small group at 100, I'd like to take it to another range not far from here and try it at up to 500 yds.
It's a lot of fun shooting at steel gongs offhand at 100 yds. It is an excellent offhand gun and the recoil is not quite as noticable as on the bench or prone.

Does Dyson still make molds? I believe that is the one that used to be sold here. I believe it cost about $215.00 about 15 years ago. I'd hate to think what it would be now if available. I've heard from others as well as yourself that the cylindricals shot better than the hexagonals and also were the most common used in our Civil War. I know that they upset well enough in the bore to take the rifling. I've recovered enough fired rounds to realize that. I guess I won't feel complete though till I get one of the others and try it out. I like to experiment. My mold is a Lyman 457621.

Again, thanks for your help. And it's good to know that there is hope for me and my cylindrical slugs! Have a good one!
::

 

[Tumblernotch]

I e-mailed Leon Kranen and am awaiting a reply. Peter Dyson still makes and sells the mold. I just found his website. It sells for 150 pounds. Equal I guess to about $270.00 or so. (I think)

 

[ResearchPress]

Pictured below is one of Leon Kranen's moulds. This one casts hexagonal grease groove bullets, but they also available with smooth sides for paper patched bullets.

David

 

[Tumblernotch]

Thanks for the picture! That looks like a well made mold. I can see why it would be expensive as well. Probably not real easy to make, even with proper tooling. I have e-mailed Mr. Kranen and am awaiting a reply. As I was telling Arilar, I visited the Peter Dyson website and found that that company still makes the brass pushthrough mold. At 150 pounds and the Kranen mold going at 345 Euros, I believe I will continue with my long grooved cylindricals. I am going to modify my sights and continue to work with my load. I'm stuck with a 100 yd. range for now, but will have access to a 200 yd. range in Pennsylvania in a couple of months, then I hope to go to a range in Kentucky later that is 500 yds. long. But there will be no point in that until I get it right at 100. Just messing around last week with bad sights was encouraging, so I'm sure with some sight work and practice I should achieve some acceptable scores. I'm not planning on competing but I would like to see just how good I can get. I know the rifle is capable. ::

 

[ResearchPress]

In Whitworth's original loading instructions he had this to say about projectiles:

"The cylindrical form of projectile is the best for general use. It is 530 grains in weight and is wrapped with paper. In loading, the projectile should be pressed gently home, and should not be so forced down as to crush the lubricating wad or the grains of powder. Projectiles cast from the mould are not to be relied upon for accurate shooting, unless they are passed through a die-press."

You can find the full loading instructions at: www.lrml.org/historical/whitworth/loading.htm

David

 

[Tumblernotch]

Thanks. You've probably guessed by now that I have already saved that info on my hard drive. It is very helpful. I really enjoyed reading Guns and Steel by Sir Joseph. I am amazed that he actually rifled a barrel with as tight a twist as 1 in 1" and it actually worked!

I have found that the cylindricals obdurate quite well in the hex bore with 65 grs. of powder or more. 60 grs. in my rifle doesn't fully expand them. I had milled hollow bases in some of my bullets and that helped at the lower charges.

As my bullets have grease grooves, I've not bothered with a lubricating wad although I have a hex wad punch that was provided with the rifle. My biggest problem is not having a scale with enough capacity to accurately weigh the bullets. My scale only goes as high as 500 grs. I was told that the mold I have throws a 560 gr. bullet. The barrel of the rifle for some reason is stamped 560 gr. Bullet . It may actually be a 530. The mold is stamped with 582 but I don't believe that is the weight. I may sometime in the future attempt to make a smooth bullet mold with a shallow base cavity and try paper patching. I like to tinker.

I spent the day casting bullets including three patterns of Minies (Two actually the same with different base cavities), two sizes of round ball and a big batch of Whitworths, so I am ready for about everything. I may get to start work on my sights Saturday. It's supposed to be beautiful weather then and I'd rather be shooting though.

Well, gotta go. Thanks for the post. By the way, are you the administrator of the lrml site? It is very good and I recommend anyone with this interest to look at it.
:master: ::

 

[jimbo15563]

Ranger,

Hope I'm not wearing out my welcome, I have some more dumb questions. I've been studying up on the Whitworth to decide if I want that barrel. I responded to the email telling the man that I was interested in purchasing that unfinished barrel. I asked him for a price plus shipping + duties (It's from the UK), but haven't heard back yet.

In the meantime, I've been trying to learn all I can about the characteristic and ideosyncrasies of the Whitworth. Some of the thing I've picked up so far are;
1. The Whitworth fouls easily and that a projectile can be stuck in the barrel if the shooter is careless about cleaning. A shooter was disqualified from a UK long range match in the 1880's for loading a hexagonal copper disk above the powder charge to clean the fouling when he shot.
2. The Whitworth has a lot of recoil due to the weight of the projectile and that the weight can't be cut much because it need a projectile length of 1" + to shoot well.
3. The hexagonal moulds for the bullets are pretty pricy.
4. A swager is available whereby a .50 caliber bullet is compressed via a bench vise to .451 hexagonal. The price is reasonable, the downside being that it can take up to 10 minutes to swage 1 bullet.
5. Dixie Gunworks sells Whitworth bullets at about $.50 apiece, plus the paper patches to go along with them.

I would appreciate your letting me know if any or all of the above is :bull:.

I have concerns that the Whitworth may be too labor-intensive for casual shooting and hunting. My plan to address the above issues would be:

1. Explore the use of Black Mag 3 as a propellant to reduce the fouling.
2. Figure out and use the shortest length (lightest)projectile that would function properly.
3. Try to find a commonly available .45 conical that is slightly oversize which would shoot well.
4. Eliminate the use of paper patches.

What are your thoughts?

By the way, I think I'll start a thread in the builder's bench forum called Jimbo's Underhammer which outlines the step-by step process of building this rifle. I will welcome comments and appreciate the way the members have shared their knowledge with me.

Jimbo

 

[ResearchPress]

You might find that the 560 grain bullet is what the rifle is proofed for? I have one rifle that is stamped with a load and bullet weight.

Re. the wad you mention; this is not necessarily a lubricating wad. Most long range shooters use some form of over powder wad. Type varies, but card, felt, milk bottle carton and LDPE have been used (note that the latter being plastic would not be permitted under MLAIC international rules). The most commonly used in my experience is card, which some users

 

[ResearchPress]

Re. your questions

1. I have never come across anyone shooting a Whitworth having had a bullet stuck in the bore due to careless cleaning. Long range matches here comprise 3 sighters + 15 match shots and with a couple fo fouling shots the riflemen may fire say 20 shots in 60-90 minutes. At long range this would typically be with 90-100 grain charges. That's quite a lot of shooting and probably more than is likely in a hunting envirnonment. Load powder; add over powder wad; wipe bore; load bullet.

Whitworth introduced a scraper to his cleaning rod, but this was eventually banned by the NRA(GB). As an alternative he placed the scraper within his cartridges. A lubricating wad was sandwiched between two copper discs within the cartridge. The 19th century rifleman you refer to was in a competition where ammunition in the form of the cartridge was issued to the competitors. He was disqualifed for taking the cartridge apart and substituting his own lubricating wad, not for adding the disk.

2. Large charges and heavy projectiles fired from the prone position will give more recoil when compared to PRB. Whitworth was working to the criteria laid down by the War Office which was a service charge and 530 grain bullet. He determined that a 1:20 twist and .45 bore were optimum for this combination.

3. Quality hex moulds are expensive but not absolutely necessary, except perhaps for the keen long range marksman.

4. & 5. I have no experience of the swage or DGW bullets.

Re. your proposals:

1. I think there is an element of exaggeration and myth about the level of fouling in the Whitworth. Stick with BP.

2. & 3. Have a look at the Sharps-Bailey bullet (don't recall the Lyman no., but it's the multi-groove flat nose one.). Bullets need to be just under bore-size, not oversize. Most bullets designed for cartridge rifle will need to be sized down.

4. Paper patched bullets are not essential, although used by many long range marksmen.

David

 

[jim gray]

I read somewhere that a Whitworth hexagonal bullet was referrred to as a "bolt". I was wondering is this correct or was it just a blunder by a writer?

 

[Tumblernotch]

Hey Flash, You read right, at least far as Whitworth artillery projectiles go. David can probably tell you more. The shot used in the Whitworth cannons used in our Civil War were designated as bolts, that is, the solid shot at least.

I have to leave for my daughter's band concert for a few hours, so I'll have to reply to jimbo's and David's posts when I get back. I'm learning more and more on this thread. I'll talk with you fellers a little later. ::

 

[Tumblernotch]

Hey Jimbo,
You're not wearing out your welcome and your questions ain't dumb. However, I may give some dumb answers. I'm certainly no expert about this weapon. I've studied a bit about it and have been blessed to own one for over 20 years, but I have a fairly limited experience in shooting live rounds from it. I'm just now getting serious about seeing just how accurate I can shoot with it. David and some of these long range guys can surely give you better advice and direction than I can, but I'll try to answer your questions the best I can too.

As for question 1, it does foul somewhat easliy and I have had a few rounds stick a bit, but that was due to me not being more careful in wiping the bore and not using enough lube on the bullet. If you are using cylindrical bullets, they need to fit pretty close to upset into the bore enough to seal against gas blow-by and engage the rifling. I don't know about the shooter being disqualified but I believe David answered that.

Question 2: It does have a noticeably heavier recoil than most ML rifles of that caliber. The bullet is heavier and the powder charge while not excessively heavy combines with that to create a pretty high barrel pressure. Also, the military style Whitworths are built on the Enfield musket pattern where the butt is more in line with the bore than is common in Springfield pattern muskets and sporting rifles. This tends to make the recoil more noticeable, but as David noted in an earlier post, it also makes the recoil more bearable when shooting at long ranges when the barrel is elevated several degrees above the horizontal. By the way, the bullets I shoot are 1 3/8" long. There were shorter bullets used, but not much shorter. Sir Joseph Whitworth said that it was his contention that great range with a low trajectory, accuracy and penetration are obtained by a long bullet, high rotation and a large powder charge. When he was asked to design the rifle which evolved into the one we're talking about, he was unrestricted in all but two things. He had to design something that retained the 530 gr. bullet weight and the 70 gr. powder charge used in the Enfield rifle musket. Actually, the recoil is not that terrible unless you do what I did and sit at a bench and shoot 40 rds. with no breaks except swabbing and loading.

Question 3: The hex molds are expensive and I will continue to use cylindricals which are said to be more accurate. One would think the opposite, but those who have shot both say the cylindricals generally perform the best. Possibly the hex bullets are more susceptible to wind variations, I don't know. Dyson's mold costs 150 Pounds and Kranen wants 220 Euros for his, so you're looking at over $250 U.S.

Question 4: Swaging .50 bullets to .45 is too much work for me. Seems to me like there would have to be some internal distortion that may make the bullet unbalanced. I have swaged .45/70 in the Whitworth mold and they were badly distorted on the outside. You can make a swage for this bullet in a lathe if you can get a proper sized reamer. I messed mine up so I need to make another. If you can buy a Whitworth swage from Dixie, Navy Arms or Gibbs that would be the way to go.

Fifty cents is a bit high for a bullet, but if they are hex bullets and you want to try some and if you have the money, that's an option. I've never paper patched, but would like to try sometime. The bullets I use have grease grooves. The hex molds made by Leon Kranen are available in both plain and with grooves. (Now that's a real weird looking bullet!)

As for your concerns about casual shooting and hunting I can tell you that it's not as casual as your run of the mill rifle or musket, but it's not that bad. One thing I failed to mentionn earlier is that I have started using a drop tube to load the powder. It keeps powder from sticking to a damp bore after swabbing and it slightly compresses the powder when loading. It's not absolutely necessary, so you won't need it for hunting. I've found that it makes it easier to load a tight bullet since the bullet doesn't have to scrape against powder stuck to the sides of the bore. I've hunted with mine and shot deer with it. With it's bullet weight and accuracy it would be an excellent choice in more open country and as long as you can see the game you're hunting well enough to make a clean killing shot, you can be comfortable at taking shots at a much longer range than with other muzzleloaders, especially RB guns.

1: I would stick with Black Powder and stay in the FFFg range. I guess I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I've never used substitutes and as long as I get get BP that's all I'll ever use. If you feel comfortable with one of the others, by all means use it. The fouling ain't that much worse than any other BP gun, the problem is, the bullet fits much tighter than in a musket and also most shooters are used to firing several shots without swabbing. I swab after every shot in my flintlock rifle when target shooting as well as my rifle-musket. The only gun I don't swab every shot in is my Charleville, unless I'm shooting patched ball.

2&3: I have sized and shot some 45/70's (turned down in the lathe) in my rifle but wasn't too impressed. I need to shoot some more and evaluate more. If you can find a bullet of about .446-.447 diameter that weighs about 400-450 grs. and at least 1" long, you might have a keeper. There were quite a few variations of the Whitworth bullet. I would like to get some more variations myself. Also, if you can get a bullet with a shallow hollow base that would be good. That will form a gas seal as well as expand into the rifling. I have actually milled hollow bases into some of mine and they worked quite well.

4: If you get bullets with grease grooves you won't need to paper patch. I use a beeswax/Crisco lube that I use on my Minies and it works fine. After I grease the bullets, I run them through the sizer. As a matter of fact, after lunch I think I'm going to mill some more bases and lube some that I cast Thursday.

I've found that the Whitworth does take a little more care in shooting and cleaning, but I believe it's worth it to obtain the accuracy it's noted for. It is a rare piece of ordnance here and gets a lot of attention when it appears on the range or the reenactment field. I only wish that I could do it justice when I shoot it. Hopefully, I can get the sights fixed to suit my not so great eyesight and get a load worked up that will do the job. I hope you've gotten some kind of help here. I know that there are others who know a heck of a lot more than me about these things. I look forward to your underhammer thread and good luck with your rifle! If you have any more questions or comments feel free to post something. If you find anything new, let me know. I'm still learning too. :: I bet you wish I wasn't so windy, huh? :yakyak:

 

[Johnny Tremain]

You need to contact DGW and get a whole Parker-Hale Withworth AND the bullet moulds

I didnt see it noted anywhere here. But the Withworth DID NOT fire round ball.

If is a specially made hexigon bullet incsed in waxxed paper for a machanical fit. Imagine cutting for the sharpened end of a pencil and screwing down the barrel.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Hi David, thanks for the info. My rifle is stamped 560 gr. Bullet and 90 grs. Powder . When I first got it I shot with 90 grs. Not for Sissies . I am figuring that it is the maximum recommended load. I'm sure it was proofed with a heavier load.

I have used milk carton material before as well as felt, though what I used was too thin. I didn't have much success. I 've heard that a lubricated felt wad 1/4" thick does well. I have the hex wad cutter and I'm wondering if wads punched out of over-shot cards would work. I have a box full. It is stiff enough to scrape the bore. What's your opinion on that? Confederate soldiers also used a hex wad made of beeswax, but other than lubing and possibly sealing around the bullet, I don't know how effective they would be. I made a few but haven't tried them yet. They're a bugger to make.

I lubed and sized a batch of cylindricals today, as well as a bunch of minies for my next outing. My sizer shouldn't be worn out but it barely sizes the bullets. I miked some and they are measuring in the .451-.452 range. I started a few down the bore and they will go, but just. Lord help me if I get one stuck and can't pull it. The breech is solid in the rear. I would have to drill it out and that is something I like to avoid.

The longest range that I have fired Minies at was 200 yds. I bet it is quite an experience to shoot them at 600 or 800. We have an occasional musket match offhand at 50 yds. which is not far, but you had better be getting X's about every shot. We haven't had one in quite a while, but since we've opened our new range we'll probably reinstate it soon. A couple of us like to shoot at steel gongs out at 100 yds. Now, to me, gongs are very entertaining. I had a good day a few months ago and hit a gong a little over a foot square with a .69 smoothbore 5 out of 6 times. That may have been a fluke, but it happened. We are thinking of hanging some new gongs out as far as we can shoot which is about 130 yds. I also know how it is to have everything figured out shooting Minies one day and the next time out having everything get knocked into a cocked hat. Gets downright depressing sometimes.

I have your long range site saved in My Favorites and have been referring to it a good bit lately. I haven't seen your mlagb site yet. Have to check it out. The other day I happened onto the Bristol Muzzle and Breechloader site. It has a lot of good links. I downloaded the "Controls on Firearms" paper that your Home Secretary wrote. How depressing! I know that this is off topic, but anyone reading this post should read it. We think we have it bad here with the government wanting to control our sport. You poor guys have it bad!

Well, guess I'll close for the time being and check out some other threads and your other site. Thanks for your help and let me know if you have anything new. I have really enjoyed this thread and have learned much. Since you're several hours ahead of us here, I'll say, Have a good day! ::

Bob

 

[ResearchPress]

> My rifle is stamped 560 gr. Bullet and 90 grs. Powder

That'll be a max. recommended load, and proof load will have been something like twice that. Speaking of large loads...

The NRA(GB) held two matches at 2000 yards in 1865 and 1866. W.E.Metford designed the only successful rifle used in these matches. There were only two made (one is in the NRA museuam at Bisley and the other in the Royal Armouries, Leeds). A friend has built a repro. of this .50 cal match rifle. It fires a 750 grain bullet over 150 grain charge. :: See the following for more information on the original 2000 yard matches: www.lrml.org/historical/metford/2000yards.htm

Milk carton is likely to be somewhat on the thin side for a wad. A thicker card that will retain it's shape and scrape the bore while being loaded will be better I think.

Oh BTW, Bristol Muzzle and Breech Loading Gun Club is one of the local clubs I belong to.

David

 

[mike alexandre]

Ref the Kreanen mould/bullet which comes out with a flat base. Anybody any tips on the paper wrapping and sealing the base technicque please.

 

[ResearchPress]

WRT paper patching, have a look in the technical reference section of www.lrml.org. There's a pictorial guide to paper patching plus links to other internet resources.

My paper patched bullet (not Kranen or for Whitworth) has a slightly cupped base. When the bullet is wrapped, the overlap at the base can be twisted and flattened into the cup.

Some shooters I know have had a small 'cutter' made to trim the excess from the patch. The wrap is twisted to a point at the base; the wrapped bullet is then held while the cutter is placed over the base and turned, trimming of the twisted point of paper at the base. This leaves a small circular hole in the base of the wrapper. I hope that is clear... I don't have any pictures to illustrate it.

David

 

[Tumblernotch]

560 gr. Bullet, 90grs. Powder That's what I figured. That proof load would be a bear wouldn't it?

That 750 gr. .50 cal. is the same weight as that used in a .50 cal. M2 Browning M.G. I'm sure the velocity is a good bit less. Sgt. Carlos Hathcock blew a Viet Cong off a bicycle at 2500 yds. with one. I guess if you're goin' to shoot that far, it pays to go big, whether BP or smokeless.

I discovered that the thin carton wads and the thin felt don't work well. Another problem was that no matter how careful you load them, they tend to fold and wad up when ramming, whether if rammed separately or with the bullet. And of course, they're not thick enough to scrape the bore.

I ran into a feller that used to shoot in my club yesterday who shoots at a range in neighboring Kentucky who encouraged me to bring my Whitworth and try it out. They have a 500 yd. range and shoot both paper and sillouette there. There is no point in going though until I get my sights right at 100. I look forward to giving it a try.

I'll check on that 2000 yd. shoot and study it too. Thanks.
:thumbsup:

 

[mike alexandre]

Thanks David. I have no problem with round 451s and paper wrapping, its just trying to get a system wherebye the whitworths are ready to go at the fireing point. I gather shooters trim the tail off just b4 loading or they unravel. The paper that is not the shooters!!