Long range shooting

ronaldrothb49 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

Art Caputo said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Magungo1066 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Magungo1066 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SciAggie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LongWalker said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nice work and thanks for the valuable data !

The engineering of the military pieces designed to use hollow based bullets show where flintlocks could have gone if not for advent of percussion ignition systems. Perhaps a long full stock, bore somewhere around 1/2" or larger, thick at the breech and slender down the length of its round barrel, rifled to use the heaviest bullet practical to the intended uses, lug for a ring bayonet, ladder rear sight, sling, metal butt plate. I'd like to have one!

My home is on family owned property since 1840 and years ago I built a 1000 yard range on it because I was an active shooter in NRA High Power events. I still shoot as does my entire family. I'm the only one interested in shooting ML however and I have always wondered in times past in just how accurate a ML with PRB would shoot? The target photo shown is 32" wide x 34" depth and it's a good target for seeing what a Hawken ML could do at 200 yards shooting PRB. Using one of my .54 caliber rifles in flintlock and shooting a .530 ball atop 100 grains of KIK 2F blackpowder I have fired a few 5 and ten shot groups off a bench that would cluster into a group of 7". I did this on days very early in the AM or late evening PM with very little wind. This is using the standard barrel sights as these rifles were normally supplied with. The front sight on this rifle was cut down when I first got it such that when shooting at 100 yards it was zeroed at that distance. Using a hold I developed whereby the top of the rear sight being level with THE BASE of the front sight and the top of the front sight held at center....the balls clustered toward center. I might add that even with some wind....the drift left or right with 9 or 3 o/clock wind was not as much as I thought it would be. As far as 'Hollywood shots' are concerned out to 3 and 400 yards with any ML rifle with these same sights....I'll call BULL...t on this of the highest order! Oh...the shots on this plate are five rounds I fired from 800 yards with a rifle you don't want to talk about.

Bushfire said:

IdahoLewis was active on the sister forum, then created his own, then quit forums altogether. He had some videos removed by YouTube and then may have removed some himself. I think he got sick of people who don't shoot past 100 yards telling him how he was doing things wrong because of this or that despite the fact he shot incredibly well.

Contrary to what many say about 1:48" twist rifles for balls/bullets and what people say about balls yawing he showed at 600 yards they can still land in the vicinity of where you want to put them.

I really liked him and spoke to him often, regret not getting his off forum email to stay in touch.

Click to expand...

I think reality caught up with him after getting some long range shooting experience under his belt and found that what actual long and midrange competitors informed him about mirage and wind doping was true and need to be corrected for consistency.
Getting a few good hits on camera on a clear and calm day is not consistently repeatable when the conditions change without ( very often significant) sight correction and any long or midrange competitor knows this and the corrections necessary to maintain accuracy.
He was using a percussion gun with paper patched conicals and aperture sights not balls, flint ignition and open sights, in the videos I watched.
He is a good shot, just not well versed in long range shooting requirements !

LongWalker said:

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.)

Click to expand...

I could see my balls coming down hill on the trajectory patch at 200 yards shooting a bear silhouette one day of competition ! I was quite shocked to repeatedly watch the ball over my .54 cal open sights shooting 110 grains of Goex 2F arching down hill like a meteorite. The flat light conditions were just right and the ball could be clearly seen at each shot.
I've noticed this before on occasion while shooting a .45 cal hand gun as well.

I was very happily surprised when I tried my newly built and sighted .62 rifle (Ed Rayl 35” barrel 1:72 twist) at a metal torso size target at 200 yards. 80 grains with a .61 patched ball. It took almost 3 seconds but the hits were quite audible. I think my buddies were more surprised than me!
Three shots, three hits, about a 6” group.

Magungo1066 said:

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.

Click to expand...

We have made Daniel Boone, Timothy Murphy , and a host of others into some kind of super hero's, they were just men that made a lucky shot once or twice.

Juice Jaws said:

We have made Daniel Boone, Timothy Murphy , and a host of others into some kind of super hero's, they were just men that made a lucky shot once or twice.

Click to expand...

At the Battle of Wetzell’s Mill after Guilford Courthouse, the American riflemen didn’t prove to be legendary:
“Tarleton sent a company of men from the 23rd Regiment under James Webster to storm across the ford. Williams' riflemen were ordered to target the officer, and Henry Lee reported that they "discharged their rifles at him, one by one", but "himself and horse were untouched".[3]
Seems they were shooting downhill which might account for over aiming?

Magungo1066 said:

I wait until they take them off to sneak up. It is way better than using a flashlight at night…I kid

Click to expand...

And my wife says that my sense of humor sucks, at least that's what I think she says.

shorthair said:

And my wife says that my sense of humor sucks, at least that's what I think she says.

Click to expand...

I have the same dilemma, my solution is to laugh at my own jokes!

Are balls more sensitive to wind deflection than conicals ? They certainly are to velocity loss.

Add a .50 or .54 barrel rifled for hollow base bullets and suitable sights... a Pedersoli trade gun could be a good place to start.

The older you get, 50 yds is long range shooting.

Man, no kidding. I have great hopes for some upcoming corrective surgeries to provide remedy for surface roughness, scarring, cataracts and astigmatism. As it is now to worry the ground squirrels in the garden I need one of those Jose Wales rope cutting scopes or else maybe some 1864 exploding minie balls.

Magungo1066 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The problem is the number of variables.
You have:
The quality of the powder used,
The quality of the barrel used,
The position chosen by the shooter,
The experience of the shooter with that particular rifle,
The ability of the shooter to see the target,
The availability of a hold-over sight position,
Is the target going to stand still,
Cross winds condition,
Convection light bending on a hot day,
Humidity in the air,
Altitude of the target and shooter,

Just to name a few.

I went to Peacemaker National Training Center last summer, and shot out to 300 yards with .530 patched round ball. At 200 yards, on a 12" steel target, with a treeline in the background allowing me to pick out an aiming point, using a tight position on a solid bench, I hit four out of 10 shots. At 300 yards I hit none. OH I came close based on the spirts of earth around the target but nothing hit.

Could they have done it, sure, but it was likely mostly luck (imho) , because why would they have practiced such shooting and where? It's very easy to engage a line of men, drop the guy on the end or on the horse behind the line, and claim "I meant to do that". We don't know for example how many times a person was actually shot at before that lethal hit was scored. They don't write that down very often in historical accounts.

You don't read, "General Obstangardis road back and forth for hours and hours while dozens of sharpshooters fired upon him for more than 200 yards without success, when Bob finally with his last rifle ball of the twenty he'd fired that day at the general, struck the general in his chest, killing the general."

What we get from a history book is, "Bob, with only one bullet left, knowing how important that shot was, took careful aim and toppled a fellow off his horse, later to learn it was the General." (no mention of the previous 19 misses, nor the other guys who also missed) Truth is the Law of Averages played a huge part, eh?

LD

I can hit this helium tank about 50% of the time at 165-175 yds with my 40 cal. With a bit of practice I think I could get close to 100%. I don't think the long shots are that hard, with some Kentucky windage and a good rest and I think our ancestors could of definitely accomplished 200-300 yd shots. If you enlarge the picture of the rifle you can see the can. Not the same day but I either shoot from the truck or a or a fence post further back.

Harmonica Bob said:

Good question. Whitworth designed his rifle in a 600 yd indoor range. Many Yankee officers fell to this rifle. During the battle of Saratoga, the whole squad of marksmen were ordered to shoot at General Frasier, on his horse. He was about 300 yds away. Tim Murphy was given credit for the kill, but there were many shots taken at the general. The BC of a round ball is too low for any consistant, presision hits beyond 125 yds. Miniballs and other bullets are capable of long range shots with the rifles most of us have. I had a deadly 150 yd load with a 385 gn Buffalo Bullet and 60 gns of Pirodex, in a 32 inch, 1 in 66, round ball barrel. My longest kill was a heart shot at 138 yds. but I could always hit a 150 yd gong. It's allot of work, but go for it! A tang sight will help allot. The wind will ruin accuracy. Good luck!

Click to expand...

It was Kings Mountain, if memory serves.