olde tyme smoothe bore accuracy

[whitetrash078]

I went to the range today to try to squeeze more accuracy out of my smoothie and the thought occured to me; "Did our fore fathers do extensive load development for their smoothies or did they simply shove the ball down the barrel and hope for the best?" :hmm: I have spent considerable time and money trying to get the best accuracy possible out of something that is inherently inaccurate for the sake of hunting deer. I doubt our forefathers had the time or money to do so. Anyway, I was just curious if anyone has read aything about load development 1750 style.

-Erik-

 

[Russianblood]

Roger's Rangers spent considerable amounts of time "shooting at marks". Accuracy, even with a smoothbore, was important to them.

 

[whitetrash078]

Rogers Rangers yes, but what about the average civilian?

 

[TN.Frank]

I'd say that most of em' were pleased as punch with "minute of deer" accuracy. No need to cut thight little groups with a smoothbore when all ya' care about is putting food on the table. I'm sure there were some folks that were "pickey" about it but by and large if they could hit and kill what they aimed at they were happy. :hmm:

 

[tom hargrove]

most of there hunting loads were buck and ball or swan shot and at much closer ranges than we can expect today.

 

[chuck-ia]

just curious,what kind of accuracy do you expect? and at what range? flinch

 

[tg]

" I have spent considerable time and money trying to get the best accuracy possible out of something that is inherently inaccurate for the sake of hunting deer."

i am not sure what you are looking for, the last smoothie I put together put the first five balls in a sub 3" group at about 45 yds, mots of my others can do this out to 55 or 60 yds this is more than adequate for deer with a gun without a rear sight and a rb as the projectile, I know many who can shoot very well at 75yds after they get to know their gun. I belive it is a matter of ones expectations being realistic , the same applies to a rifled ML they are a limeted range gun when compared to modern centerfires.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Boone talked about being able to walk to within a few feet of deer when he first entered Kentucky. Later, when they had been shot at some, and learned to fear people, it took considerable skill to stalk close enough to get within bowshot, and that is one of the reasons the Indian tribes wanted to push the white out of their hunting grounds. I don't see many deer letting people walk within a few feet of them these days, unless you are well concealed or up a tree. Times change, and they are why we are requred to consider load development when the men who used similar guns 250 years ago didn't. We also know more about how to make guns, have better guns, and more and better components than they ever dreamed of having. It only makes sense to make the most of what we have. They were using the very best tools available to them in their day.

 

[whitetrash078]

With reguards to accuracy I am trying to see how far I can get consistant 5-6" groups. So far I can go about 40 yds and expect 5-6" groups :redface: . This is the best I can do with no rear sight. I feel it is more me not being consistant than the load I am shooting.(I know, practice, practice, and more practice.)

The point is I am trying to get the most distance between me and a target with the smallest grouping possible from a fowler so I can kill as humanely as posible and was wondering if our forefathers did the same? Is there any documentation of people developing loads for best accuraccy; or do we assume they just patched a ball and called what ever they got good enough and just lived with what ever range they could manage?

 

[JWP]

Back then, the use of buck and ball helped guarantee a hit - be it man or beast.

 

[whitetrash078]

Good point, buck and ball would help; plus those guys back east had good cover to hunt, out here on the :cursing: prairie shots are longer :cursing: than in the woods for sure.

some men were born in the wrong time, I was born in the wrong state :shake: :bull: :haha:

 

[Deadeye]

They were taught how to shoot and how to hunt from the time they were in diapers. It was something you did every day, like learning to walk. Once you were grown, you didn't have to practice walking or shooting or sneaking up on a deer.

 

In all of my readings I can find no references to suggest that they thought about or cared about all the modern ballistics stuff that we talk about. At the beginning of the F&I War there are old passages that relate to the poor marksmanship of many early militia units (with smootbore muskets)--but the implications are that it was due to lack of training as to how to "aim" and pull the trigger rather than anything to do with "load development"--a decidedly modern thought. Every early hunting story I have read (and there are hundreds)omits any reference to loads save things like heavy for bear vs normal loads. There was definitely the idea of "power" in a load. The hunting stories indicate that typically hunters got up close and personal to game. In many cases dogs treed or cornered animals and the hunter essentially placed the muzzle against the animal and shot it. Typically game appears to have behaved a little differently than our modern animals, who pressured by millions of hunters, seem more evasive and "spooky". In general, the old timers used much lighter loads than many modern hunters--and many today would find accuracy improve with lighter loads, although this is not a hard and fast rule. Hunters with smoothbores in general should think of their guns as bow&arrow accurate and limit the range accordingly, IMHO. I am sure that many out there can get

 

[musketman]

Rogers Rangers yes, but what about the average civilian?

I would say no, powder and shot was hard to come by on the new frontier so they did not squander it...

I do believe they adjusted their loads as they shot, if they seen that they're hitting low, they would allow more powder to accommodate the extended range...

 

[TN.Frank]

Every early hunting story I have read (and there are hundreds)omits any reference to loads save things like heavy for bear vs normal loads. There was definitely the idea of "power" in a load.

And thus the term "Loaded for Bear." :hmm:

 

[Ridge]

You call it load development....I call it shooting.

I like to shoot! :grin:

 

[TN.Frank]

I wonder if there's two schools of thought on this. 1) pick a load and adjust the gun to shoot where that load hits.
2)Adjust the load to hit were the rifle is sighted in at.
Personally, I like to pick a load and adjust the rifle to hit rather then trying to work up a load. Guess I'm pretty much backwards to most people though, LOL. :winking:

 

[John Tice]

Interesting question. In colonial New England, and elsewhere, it was required that each able-bodied man served in the local militia and that he had to maintain a working firelock as well as have so much ammunition, powder, a bayonet or sword, and so on. Such arms were routinely inspected and people were fined if they were not up to par or if they missed training day. While training was not especially intensive during peacetime, shooting competitions were occasionally held to promote accurate shooting. I think that children were taught to shoot at early ages and, as mentioned above, buck and ball loads were commonly used which are very effective. Also, by the Revolutionary War most families had members that had fought in the various colonial wars such as The Seven Years, King George’s War, Queen Anne’s and so on, which made up for a lot of first hand experience. While marksmanship was a good skill to have, we have to remember that 99% of the people were farmers and most topics of conversations revolved around manures, raising livestock and crops, and less on bore solvents, shooting loads and ball trajectory. :haha:

 

[whitetrash078]

good replies everybody, You all have some intresting thoughts on the subject. Your probably right though, most conversation was on farming topics instead of musket balistics. I just need to adjust my modern mind to be a little more colonial in thought. :thumbsup:

 

[Wes/Tex]

Agree with all the above. Think their thoughts differed from ours about accuracy and ballistics. Also note the comment about militia, particularly the New England colonies who had specific weapon rules including bayonet, iron ramrod and buckshot which rules out rifles real quick. All the BS about picking off Redcoats with their Penn. rifles is just that. They were, for the most part, farmers whose fowlers and msukets served their practical purposes for hunting in a more populated area...though not as we think of it either.