400 yard hits with a patched round ball

[necchi]

:haha: (comma) :wink:
(period)

 

[jdkerstetter]

... 6' x 2' target. 10 shots. Most hits wins?

I think the targets should be a bit smaller, after all.....

.....prob'ly they were all curled up in a fetal position sucking on their thumbs too

:haha: :haha: :haha: Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Birdwatcher Said:

.....prob'ly they were all curled up in a fetal position sucking on their thumbs too

Quoted out of context of course.

Anyhow, I got this from a gentleman on another forum....

In one of the older books I have read I believe that Ned Roberts [ ? ] actually tested a .54 cal at a very long range ...400 yds or more. He used a black powder duplex load ie FFg over FFFg and a patched round ball. Once he got the sight picture down, he made more hits on the target than not.

Worth looking into if someone has the books, I couldn't find it on Google.

I have no idea why someone would load two different grains in a charge.

Birdwatcher

 

[jdkerstetter]

Quoted out of context of course.

Of course. That seems to be one of the themes of this thread. If it bothers you, perhaps we can agree that's enough of that nonsense then?

Anyway, if it's Maj. Ned H. Roberts, father of the .257 Roberts, he wrote at least three books on shooting:

The Muzzleloading Caplock Rifle
The Breech-loading Single Shot Match Rifle
Big Game Hunting: White-tailed Deer and Black Bear
Maj. Ned H. Roberts and the Schuetzen Rifle

If the other poster could narrow it down a bit, it might help. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Of course. That seems to be one of the themes of this thread.

On that we disagree, as certainly did Russell in 1966 and apparently Bosworth in 1846.

And of course there's little ground for controversy. We have Major Hanger's informed description of such a shot being attempted in 1781.

It would indeed be no surprise if one of the classic gun scribes such as Mr. Roberts had attempted such shots based on Hanger's account.

Perhaps someone here will know if layering different grains of powder in a charge was/is a thing done in target loads.

Prob'ly got about four to six hours googling invested now. At one point I came across reference to a Muzzle Blasts edition from 1984 (??) on the topic of exploring the outer limits of longrifle performance. Perhaps someone here may recall it.

Birdwatcher

 

[jdkerstetter]

As far as taking quotes out of context, I wasn't necessarily referring to those authors. Though Draper is an example of one using others accounts to further ones own agenda or influence others opinions.

Anyway, duplex loading of powder isn't germaine to the context of this thread as it's more than unlikely the subjects involved here carried more than one grade of powder.

To consider modern experimentation, one would have to find tests done using period equipment of the type used by the subjects. There is documentation of very long range target shooting going back the era in question, but the guns and accoutrements used were not fielded by the Seminoles.

Again, not saying that 400 yard "hits" didn't happen, just that they would have been more chance than skill. Considering the size of target, the given range, the fact that soldiers underfire rarely stayed still in the open very long allowing for sighters to zero them in, etc.

As far as Gaines credibility, even if it is beyond reproach, I have read enough testimony and reports to know that people, especially military people, trying to influence the powers that be will give the facts in a manner so as to further the good of the cause.

For example, if Gaines was a staunch believer that better long arms were needed by the army he would have "used" any oportunity to testify as a means to further that cause....as would any good general officer. It may not even have been his choice, as we often have to do the bidding of our superiors.

It's not lying or even twisting the facts. He would only be doing as you are here, laying out events in a way that suits his point of view.

In battles and events through out history, where we are lucky enough to have documentation from multiple involved sources and eye witnesses you can form different opinions of the events based on each idividuals perception of what happened. As more people became literate and were able to record these events for themselves we have ended up with more confusion on events than in the past.

Just food for thought based on my studies of history and personal experience. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Anyway, duplex loading of powder isn't germaine to the context of this thread...

Didn't intend to suggest that it was, I was just wondering as to the logic behind it. Only duplex load I've heard mention before that was Pyrodex laid over a small charge of black power in flintlocks, the black powder of course being necessary to ignite the Pyrodex.

Well, here's one book it ain't necessary to buy, courtesy of Google....

The War in Florida

On the link, search on "rifle" on the Search Inside link and select the one on p 144, wherein is described in detail the horrible wound suffered by Major Izard at the start of the action. Read down to p. 147 for the description of the dead Indian.

Also note that the particular dead Indian found, besides the 50 or 60 bullets, also was "plentifully supplied with the finest quality of rifle powder". It does appear from the descriptions and the apparent volume of fire laid down over the next week that these particular Indians at that point in time weren't hard up for shooting supplies.

Also at the bottom of that page, find the footnote pertaining to the Indian rifles being "much more accurate" than the apparently poor quality of the US issue rifles.

Skip down again however for the sort of quote that reenactors in particular, who might be the pickiest historians of them all, thrive upon; p. 152....

This is no doubt owing to the careless manner in which the Indians sometimes load. Their first fire is generally dangerous, as the rifle is well loaded and the bullet patched, but when the Indian enters into battle, he fills his mouth with bullets, and guesses at the quantity of powder, and the bullet is then dropped from the mouth into the barrel without a patch and, hitting the butt a tap or two, he is ready to shoot again -

These shots cannot, of course be effective, and hence it is that many of our men who were wounded on the 29th of February, received the shot from the rear, the bullet having passed by the object to which it was directed and gone to the other side of camp, whilst others struck the trees in the enclosure as high as twenty or thirty feet.

This is in consequence of the large charge of powder, which makes the bullet fly wild. Too little powder drives the bullet with more precision, but not so far.

Hmm... loading loose balls into a longrifle from the mouth..... shades of Louis Wetzel fifty years earlier on the Ohio, and perhaps common practice all across the Frontier (also to include the well known example of buffalo running).

Note the Indians profligate use of powder and ball, probably neither side anticipating just how long the war would go on.

Also note that Potter [the author] is well-versed in the use of the rifle and presumes his audience is too.

Birdwatcher

 

[gearheart]

Well I've been reading this all along. Great entertainment value. Thanks for the provocative post. It would seem that the Seminoles were well supplied with powder and lead so their success may have been based on the stucco principle, "throw enough mud against the wall and some of it will stick" However, lucky shot or not, men were getting killed from 400 yds away. My .22 rifle is considered dangerous to a mile so I find no trouble believing a .50 rb to be dangerous at 400 yds.
I am somewhere between the folks that say it can't be done at all and those saying it can be done regularly with practice. My position would be it can be done often enough to be worth worrying about if you are on the receiving end.
Th technique of choosing different aim points on a tree until you got the range and the walking it over until the windage was right would in short order make life very interesting for the poor devil downrange. My Dad's comment about the Czech rather imprecisely made machine gun in WW2 come to mind. He said "it may not do much good but it will surely scare the hell out of the intended target."

 

[jethro224]

I was just reading, in this months issue of Muzzleblasts, an article titled "Kentucky Gunmakers: A Brief Overview - Part II". On page 37, a couple of quotes brought this topic to mind;

The Massachusetts Spy reported on February 23, 1853:
A Sharp Shooter - The Harrodsburg Ky. Ploughboy gives us an idea, in the following, of what is called a Kentucky sharp shooter; Mr A. J. Bass, a young man, engaged in the establishment of B. Mills, the celebrated gunsmith of this place, killed five turkies in seven shots, a few days since, at a distance of 325 yards. The gun was one of Mills' rifles, and the young man shot without a rest.

"Another Mills-related account was reported in the Columbia (PA) Democrat on April 11, 1846:"

A Mr. A. B. Mills a gunsmith of Harrodsburg, KY with a rifle of his own make running 100 balls to the pound lately made 10 shots at a target 14 by 10 inches and hit 8 times out of 10 at a distance of 400 yards.

 

[George]

Foul, Jethro. You are introducing something into the discussion which is not available to everyone.... a Kentucky sharp shooter. No doubt a Kentucky shooter could do this, but not ordinary mortals in other parts of the country. Play fair. :haha: :haha:

Spence

 

[Zonie]

Yup! Them Kentucky shooters must be good alright.

That 100 balls to the pound was a .36 caliber ball.
For us mortal non-Kentuckians that little ball would have been blown half way across the Wabash by a slight breeze by the time it traveled 400 yards. :grin:

 

[smo]

Yup! Them Kentucky shooters must be good alright.

That 100 balls to the pound was a .36 caliber ball.
For us mortal non-Kentuckians that little ball would have been blown half way across the Wabash by a slight breeze by the time it traveled 400 yards. :grin:

He was shootin' down hill and down wind! :slap: :wink: :rotf:

 

[bpd303]

Never underestimate a person who has only one gun because they probably know how to use it...

 

[Birdwatcher]

Never underestimate a person who has only one gun because they probably know how to use it...

For my own part I'm sorta timing out until I have Robert's and Bosworth's works in hand (inbound even as I speak ).

In the meantime I'm struck by how well Woodburne Potter was informed about the riflery of his Seminole and Black opponents.

A lot of this no doubt could be readily determined just by watching and listening, same as we all could by observing from a distance some guy shoot at the range.

More might have been learned by asking as in: "hey, how come them Indians are hitting trees thirty feet up?"

Either way, he was anything but clueless and appears well informed of his surroundings (as opposed to hiding head down behind the breastworks the whole time as was proposed here earlier).

Ergo, if Gaines claimed 400 yard hits he likely knew whereof he spoke.

Only thing is, the only long shots from the Indians Potter reported were random hits at 200 yards.

I await the UPS guy.

Birdwatcher

 

[tenngun]

just was thinking about all this today,so I lookedup some info.A .50 with a 120 grain charge per lymen gives 2100 fps at the muzzle,about 1200 fps at 100 yds.1200 at the muzzle gives about 400 at 300 yards,so I would think 2100 should give 400 at 400,certanly enough to kill.

 

[M. De Land]

I can buy the random hits at 200 easily enough and believe that is more in line with the truth, the 400 yarders routinely is a real "stretch" for me to swallow having a fare bit of experience with .54 caliber balls at 200 yards myself.
When one combines the wind drift of a round ball and how much area an open front sight subtends at 400 yards it makes hitting a man size target regularly very improbable and the idea of standing up in plain view while hearing ball pings all around you as a combatant figures the range is absurd. Mike D.

 

[Birdwatcher]

the idea of standing up in plain view while hearing ball pings all around you as a combatant figures the range is absurd.

Dunno, that seems to have been the norm back then, through the War Between the States at least. In fact, the Brits even invented special "Light Infantry" units in the 18th Century who were allowed to take cover, seems like everybody else stood out there and delivered volleys.

Looked at in that light, Edmund Gaines may have been operating far outside the book when he forted up, and in those cited hearings took a lot of flack for not going on the initiative.

As it was he engaged a probably larger force in place for a week and had possibly brung 'em to the negotiating table, all for the loss of just 0.5% (five dead) of his force.

What may be absurd are "all or nothing" arguments.

Example....

'If random hits were happening at 200 yards they ALL must have been random hits.'

'If they were able to watch guys shoot at them they could only have done that while standing on their feet away from cover'

...and....

'Riflemen can only figure the range on opponents standing in the open'.

Birdwatcher

 

[Ole Frog]

I have read this thread with interest having read a quote somewhere about hitting at 400 yards

It wasn't just attributed to the American Indian but noted several times to the American rifleman as well

Math will tell us any hit at 400 yards is more luck than it is skill but I believe we have a factor to consider that hasn't previously been mentioned

There was a huge culture difference then as compared to today. Young boys were given rifles at an age that we see today as very dangerous and and nearly criminal. Shooting often and from a young age gave them a very good understanding of ball drop and compensation.
Think the early American version of "Hold my beer and watch this" may have been "Hold my powder and watch ye this"
my belief is 200 yards no problem 300 was a high percentage and 400 happened often enough to be noted

To add proof I offer:
Col George Hanger, a British officer, became very interested in the American rifle after he witnessed his bugler's horse shot out from under him at a distance, which he measured several times himself, of "full 400 yards", and he learned all he could of the weapon. He writes:
"I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards."

Quotations from M.L. Brown's, FIREARMS IN COLONIAL AMERICA

 

[Supercracker]

Good point about the cultural aspect.

The English Longbowman immediately comes to mind. they would be given a bow when they were 8 or 10 years old and would begin practicing every single day of their lives. (at one period it was actually illegal for a commoner to have any other leisure activity). By the time they reached military age they had achieved an extraordinary skill level. Their documented minimum standard for employment as an archer was a standard that most modern archers laugh off as completely impossible.

it's certainly not inconceivable that there were people living in the early 19th century who had invested enough time in their lives to pull off things we're skeptical about being possible.

 

[hoochiepapa]

This is the most fascinating thread!
Now instead of flapping your jaws, everyone, get out there and shoot! 6 pages and I still haven't seen a challenge. I can find a place here in the mountains to shoot 400 yards, surely there are those of you with the same blessing!
But I have to get clearance from the doc first .
But time should not matter, it doesn't have to be in a specific time period, just send in your targets! I, for one, would accept targets and post pics of them, just everyone shoot at the same size. Jethro??