Smoothbore accuracy

[Dave Orchard]

Wel, spell-check got into my knickers yet again...
REAR sight, not "teat sight"....
I load & prime with 3fg, 70 gr.
I load slightly more shot by volume & use Circle Fly wads.

One thing I did was to use seamless tubing to make a loading rod with jag/rammer head silver soldered on and small end cupped for ball & threaded for tow hook/worm, breech scraper, etc.
It was a drag filing and belt-grinding the taper to match the rod channel, but worth the trouble, even if not quite HC.

I can't walk far and intend to use a light canoe to hunt from in future
Short barrels are handy in a canoe or hoss-back.

An old friend has got his buck every time he dropped the hammer on his caplock Hawken, even out a bit past 100 yds, using .530 ball & 70 gr of 2fg.
I load a patched .55 ball and 70 gr. 3fg and prefer deer under 60 yds even for breech loaders, so I feel this is a good choice, for ME, or others similarly inclined.

Good hunting up there in AK!
Dave

 

[tenngun]

Very true, wounded combatants do pose more problems, but this wasn't factored into weapon development officially for another two hundred years.

I’m going to have to disagree with you there. An armies job and the weapons soldiers carried are designed to scare, not kill. Or more correctly to terrify so that army can work it’s will.
From the Persian ‘Immortals’ through the Roman legions on to the British red line and ultimately fat man and little boy it’s the fear of what ‘They’ can do that inforces the will.
Imagine your self facing an eighteenths century professional army. What’s worse, the man next to you catches a ball through the head, blood and gore spatter on you and he drops to the ground with some post mortum tremors, or he catches a ball through the hip, drops to the ground a cripple, if he does survive, screaming in pain at this time
The Greeks and Romans and by the sixteenth century ‘barbarian’ north west Europe treated enemy wounded with care on par with their own wounded.

 

[Rockvillerich]

I’m going to have to disagree with you there. An armies job and the weapons soldiers carried are designed to scare, not kill. Or more correctly to terrify so that army can work it’s will.
From the Persian ‘Immortals’ through the Roman legions on to the British red line and ultimately fat man and little boy it’s the fear of what ‘They’ can do that inforces the will.
Imagine your self facing an eighteenths century professional army. What’s worse, the man next to you catches a ball through the head, blood and gore spatter on you and he drops to the ground with some post mortum tremors, or he catches a ball through the hip, drops to the ground a cripple, if he does survive, screaming in pain at this time
The Greeks and Romans and by the sixteenth century ‘barbarian’ north west Europe treated enemy wounded with care on par with their own wounded.

I agree with all that, so far as firearm development however, dependability, range, ease of operation, and price were pretty much all they cared about when considering military arms until very recently.

 

[Dave Orchard]

To AK Woodsman, continued:
My fusil takes a .55 cal. Ball & I charge w/70 gr. 3fg (often prime w/same)
I feel 3fg burns cleaner in the short barrel of my canoe gun.

A long-time friend hunts with caplock .54 Hawken & same wt.charge of 2fg, and has killed with one shot, even on a long shot over 100 yds.
I fully believe my smoothbore w/nearly identical load should kill equally well at 70 yds or less.

Good hunting up there in AK
Dave