Flintlock accuracy and need help finding load

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Try FFFg. I have been shooting it for 40 years. Burns cleaner and faster velocities.
I know you don't have any but maybe someone is close to you and can help you out with a bit to try.
Given the money you have in the rifle, it would be worth the money to try some. My T/C and Lyman 1-48 twist guns shoot better than that at 100.
 
You may have indicated this in one of your posts, but I'll ask anyway: Are you shooting freehand or off a rest?
As suggested I would give 3F a try at about 80 or 90 grains, 58 is about the cut-off point for me using 3F larger I use 2F. Most of my flinters a capable of better accuracy than you show on your targets off the bench.
 
You may have indicated this in one of your posts, but I'll ask anyway: Are you shooting freehand or off a rest?
As suggested I would give 3F a try at about 80 or 90 grains, 58 is about the cut-off point for me using 3F larger I use 2F. Most of my flinters a capable of better accuracy than you show on your targets off the bench.

Those targets were off sandbags on a bench :/

I'll certainly try some 3f at some point. It just probably won't be before my hunt.
 
I had a rifle that suddenly the groups opened up. @HighUintas, have you verified that the sights are secure in their dovetails? It only takes sight movement shot to shot for groups to drastically open up.

My problem was the front sight was loose.

Did light conditions change?
I’ve seen the same several times. Enough that it’s my first suspect.
 
I had a rifle that suddenly the groups opened up. @HighUintas, have you verified that the sights are secure in their dovetails? It only takes sight movement shot to shot for groups to drastically open up.

My problem was the front sight was loose.

Did light conditions change?

That's a good thought and I actually did catch that happening last year!

My front sight has moved... I noticed a sudden shift one direction about 12" at 50 yards and found it had moved when I was loading the ball and had my hand on the sight. I've since peened the copper base a bit to tighten it up and put a witness mark on it. It hasn't moved since.

The rear sight is very tight. No movement there.

Light conditions .... Possibly, but I usually shoot under a covered range so it's fairly dark underneath compared to sunlight exposure.

My front sight has the rear portion cut almost vertical but with a slight undercut so that no light will reflect off of it. I'm essentially looking at a dark post in my semi buckhorn rear when aiming, so I don't think changed light would affect my poi with those circumstances.
 
Lots of great suggestions and I’ve learned a lot from this thread.

I’ll throw in my 2 cents based on my experiences.

Shooting an open sight rifle from a bench is a learned skill and different than a scoped rifle. I don’t know about the OP, but my eyes are not what they used to be and I find it difficult to get good sight alignment on bullseye targets. A square target or a bold crosshair make it easier.
 
Lots of great suggestions and I’ve learned a lot from this thread.

I’ll throw in my 2 cents based on my experiences.

Shooting an open sight rifle from a bench is a learned skill and different than a scoped rifle. I don’t know about the OP, but my eyes are not what they used to be and I find it difficult to get good sight alignment on bullseye targets. A square target or a bold crosshair make it easier.
Weak reading glasses is the answer to aging eyes. With both rifle and revolver, 1.25 reading glasses took me back 40 years ago when open sights were crystal clear. The target gets a little fuzzy though.
 
I made some progress. I coned my muzzle with Joe wood's took a few days ago. I don't know if this is what did the trick or if it's something else.

I went and shot today and it seems to help quite a bit. I must have had a very tight muzzle. There's a reference line on the coning tool that measures an exact 0.580. I slipped the tool into the bore and noted where it stopped on the tool ... Pretty far away from that line. I measured roughly where the tool stopped on the bore and it measured 0.577 or less.

Getting the ball started with the coned muzzle is much easier. I still have to use my short starter because the load is so tight but it's very easy get it started and don't have to pound on it endlessly anymore.

Now when pushing the ball down the rest of the way with my rod (~4 inches down from muzzle and further) it remains much tighter down to the bottom where as before coning it, it would be very easy and almost loose feeling going down passed 4" from muzzle.

I think it's possible that the muzzle was sizing/squeezing the ball down too much for the size of the bore down lower and maybe I wasn't getting a good seal. That "loose feeling " had gotten progressively looser feeling the more I had tried to smooth the bore with grey 3m pads over the last year, which I had done because it was so rough. I did use green 3m pads at one point. Maybe I had actually removed a good bit of metal in the mid/lower bore relative to the muzzle! I'm not sure but that is my hypothesis because:

Last year, it was hard to get the ball down start to finish. Then I went through the bore with 3m pads many times trying to make sure I didn't hit the muzzle much. The patches I'd recovered early on looked fine.

After that smoothing, and last time I shot and posted targets in the beginning of this thread, it was still extremely hard the first 4" and then almost loose feeling. I wasn't able to get any of these patches so I can't verify if there was any issues with sealing the bore.

After coning, it's now really snug the first 4" and remains snug the rest of the way.

And my groups were wayyy better today than last time!

I did change a couple of other things, but I don't think they made the difference that I saw today.

I shot at a different range today and it was not covered so I put sight hoods on. I'm usually at a covered range so I don't need the hoods. I also measured out about 25 charges with a scale before going to remove the variable of my powder measure technique (maybe it's not good technique?). I also tried to minimize the amount of involvement of my non trigger hand. I use it to support the toe like most do when shooting bolt rifles and found when I flinch that hand really moves the butt. So I started using it only for support and minimized the amount of grip/pinching of the toe. It seemed to help a bit.

Other than those few items everything was pretty much the same.

First target target if 70gr I was feeling a bit jumpy and had a couple of accidental trigger pulls. Orange dot is 1.5". I think this load is probably better than that... I think I struggled to see the dot a bit at first



This target I was seeing if there was much difference when swabbing the bore between each shot. Same load. And.... A few young kids came to ask my about my "cannon". They were blown away and I let them shoot a couple times. They're the high shots.




This target I decided to test it 100gr 2f OE I had leftover from when I had a 45-90 1886. I sold that gun:/ aimed at lower Orange dot.



This target is a full 120gr measure, but all weighed with my scale. An actual 126gr 2f schuetzen by weight.



This is the 126gr schuetzen load at 105 yards! About a 5" group. There's an errant shot not on the target ... I think it might be one of those high holes.




So what made the biggest difference? I don't know. I would say it's either the coning or weighing the charges. Probably the coning... Which doesn't make a lot of sense because no one has stated that coning has improved their accuracy. But, this barrel is an oddity to me. I think the evidence stated above about how the ramming the ball down the mid/lower bore before coning felt looser than after coning shows that maybe the bore diameter had become out of whack through my bubba'd lapping.

I forgot about the patches. It was really hard to find any patches at this range amongst all the trash from the heathens that leave It behind.

Bore/powder side
1000001820.jpg


Ball side
1000001821.jpg
 
Last edited:
@HighUintas, working on the flinch is always a good group tightener. Your patches look good.

You may have something on the muzzle doing a lot of sizing on the ball. While a bit of sizing shouldn't hurt, the need to pound on the ball to get it to load will deform the nose and thus open the groups. Maybe a slightly smaller ball so you are not deforming the ball or a loading jag contoured to the ball diameter will help keeping the nose of the ball the right shape for best accuracy.
 
Same barrel on a flint Hawken I built. Here was my final load (see notes on target). The top group was before I adjusted sights. Bottom group after adjusting. Bench rested. Gives you an idea of the possible if your barrel isn't defective.

View attachment 361008
View attachment 361009
Slick looking gun! Did you by chance bed the barrel inlet? I'm pretty sure I ran across your build pictures somewhere online
 
Thank you. Yes, I did bed the barrel with a very thin coat of Acraglas, and I did post a link to the build process in the Gun Builders forum back then.

I thought that was yours! Great work and thanks for sharing your pictures. I referenced them a few times when I built mine.

And good shooting! I never thought about trying a bigger ball and thinner patch because of those deep grooves. I figured it wouldn't work out, but maybe I'll give it a shot sometime.

I've also been wanting to bed the barrel to eek out all the accuracy I can and wish I'd have done that initially, but I was focused on doing everything by hand and making it as authentic as possible. I probably will sometime, but just need to make the time to do it.
 
I've also been wanting to bed the barrel to eek out all the accuracy I can and wish I'd have done that initially, but I was focused on doing everything by hand and making it as authentic as possible. I probably will sometime, but just need to make the time to do it.
IIRC, bedding a barrel is not just a modern thing. I remember reading that, while perhaps not common, bedding has been done for a long time. Different materials, like wax, were used vs modern epoxies, but then our barrels aren't wrought iron anymore either.

Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of historical gun building can chime in on the history of bedding barrels.
 
Scott, at Colerain, once told me that to tight a barrel inlet could have an adverse effect on accuracy. I don't know if bedding can have that effect or not. I read about a lot of builders who do bed them. Back in the day (and to this day) a lot of gunsmiths would get a good fit on the side flats, and round out the rest of the barrel channel; for an octagon barrel. The theory being that it allows the harmonics of the barrel to work properly.
 
Scott, at Colerain, once told me that to tight a barrel inlet could have an adverse effect on accuracy. I don't know if bedding can have that effect or not. I read about a lot of builders who do bed them. Back in the day (and to this day) a lot of gunsmiths would get a good fit on the side flats, and round out the rest of the barrel channel; for an octagon barrel. The theory being that it allows the harmonics of the barrel to work properly.

I don't believe bedding the barrel inlet sides and bottom would really help me any noticeable amount, but potentially the breech. I was a little concerned that my breech wasn't solidly seated against the stock after tightening the tang screws (long tang and 2 screws), but I measured the muzzle distance to nose cap multiple times before and after tightening the screws and didn't see a difference. So, I'm confident that is good to go.

If I get good enough to think maybe I can shoot the difference, I'll bed the breech and 6" forward from there.
 
Back
Top