Accuracy & Energy of Muzzleloaders.

[RussB]

Thanks to one of our forum members, I have spent several enjoyable hours reading "The Journal of a Trapper" by; Osborne Russell, circa 1834-1843.

In this wonderful story the writer touches on something that we are all concerned with, and do a lot of talking about...even nowadays. I have "clipped" a short passage from the Journal and would like to hear your comments on this. Aside from "personal marksmanship" what comes to mind??

"I however approached the band of Buffaloe crawling on my hands and knees within about 80 yards of them then raised my body erect took aim and shot at a Bull: at the crack of the gun the Buffaloe all ran off excepting the Bull which I had wounded, I then reloaded and shot as fast as I could untill I had driven 25 bullets at, in and about him which was all that I had in my bullet pouch whilst the Bull still stood apparently riveted to the spot I watched him anxiously for half an hour in hopes of seeing him fall, but to no purpose, I was obliged to give it up as a bad job and retreat to our encampment without meat:"

80 yards is a pretty good distance with a muzzleloader, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Whatcha think? Not enough gun?.....too much animal??.......too conservative with the powder??.....didn't get close enough??

Russ

 

[Liver eatin’ Johnson]

Mr Russell was relating a story about how inexperienced he was - this being his first hunt and with a brand new rifle ( he said it was the first time ever trying to shoot meat to eat ) so I think he probably shot at it and wounded it, missed it a few times and was suffering from a bad case of "buck feaver" to boot. The way it just stood there makes me think it was gut shot and probably suffered a lingering death

 

LMAO he probably was shooting in the wrong place lol. if you are a deer hunter or say used to shooting elk or moose you will shoot all day at a big bull buff and not do much but poke holes in him .
buffalo have very low hart and lung , real low in fact almost right above the bottom of their chest . above that , nothing but hump and space LOL. if you have ever seen the video black powder magic you will see shakkkky roger shot a bull at 50 yard with a 58 and that old bull only made a few steps before pileing up

 

[Stumpkiller]

He never did recover the bull, so he may have put 25 holes in the shoulder and hump without hitting the vitals.

Does it state his caliber anywhere?

 

[Zonie]

A Buff is a mighty big animal to take on with a round ball.
That's why the .54s (and similar sizes) were popular on the plains.
Russel never did say what caliber he was shooting and there were sometimes some smaller caliber guns with trapping partys.

Although I've read that Buffs were sometimes shot with handguns, this was done by riding up along side of them and shooting downward into the heart/lung area at point blank range. The stories also don't tell us how many ran off to die elsewhere.

IMO the .54 cal loaded to the max would take a Buff out to 75 yards but the ball would have to hit squarly in the heart/lung area to do it.

 

[tg]

"I then reloaded and shot as fast as I could untill I had driven 25 bullets at, in and about him"

That part of the quote may tell much of what happend...most may have been "about him" I have often heard folks bad mouth the RB after loosing a deer that they KNEW they had hit in the heart with a .50 RB but never found the[url] animal.......somethings[/url] do not change with the passing of time.

 

[musketman]

"I however approached the band of Buffaloe crawling on my hands and knees within about 80 yards of them then raised my body erect took aim and shot at a Bull: at the crack of the gun the Buffaloe all ran off excepting the Bull which I had wounded, I then reloaded and shot as fast as I could untill I had driven 25 bullets at, in and about him which was all that I had in my bullet pouch whilst the Bull still stood apparently riveted to the spot I watched him anxiously for half an hour in hopes of seeing him fall, but to no purpose, I was obliged to give it up as a bad job and retreat to our encampment without meat:"

So why didn't he just move closer after the fifth shot or thereabouts???

If he moved in to about 50 yard range, the roundball would have more killing energy...

25 shots into a buff with nothing to show for it seems odd, my guess would be that there was a band on Indians up on the hill laughing their breechcloths off at the whole event...

 

[Ohio Joe]

I think he was just a poor hunter. He sure was a poor decision maker using up all his lead in indian country. Not to mention having to return to camp with an empty rifle for protection along the way.

I don't see where it says what caliber of rifle he was using so I can't comment on that.

 

[RussB]

MusketMan seez: "25 shots into a buff with nothing to show for it seems odd, my guess would be that there was a band on Indians up on the hill laughing their breechcloths off at the whole event... "

They actually took their breechcloths off to dry out after seeing this.

One has to wonder how many times this same scenario played out during those years. Some of the animals, such as the Grizzly, wouldn't put up with this kind of behavior from the Trapper, whether he was experienced or not.

IRT Accuracy....I have probably given this more "in depth" thought than any part of the Fur Trade era.....And, I am of the opinion that accuracy was just "so-so" from the average trapper with the average rifle, as economics and availability would have made practice, and experimentation with different loads, near impossible.
Today we look at many of those old rifles with awe, and respect, for the craftsmanship, but were they really all that accurate? I'm sure many were. I'm equally sure "most" were more accurate than the shooter, since he was lacking the practice we consider appropriate today.
Their eyes were certainly no better than our eyes...probably less so for those who needed any kind of corrective lens.
Did they have a more steady hand? better hand / eye coordination? a more disciplined trigger finger? Or, was there a certain necessity to the "gathering of food" that we no longer possess today?
Another consideration might be....Were the guns, and components of such higher quality, (than what we have today) that the "average" marksman of the era would be an exception in today's world?
Either way, it all makes for a good read, and some very interesting speculation.
Russ

 

[waksupi]

I've shot buffalo, and watched them shot. With a well placed shot, they die fairly easily. On the other hand, I have seen them shot in the wrong place with muzzleloaders, Sharps, and modern high powers, and they have little or no reaction, and may not die for a long time without follow up.
The most reliable shot is right behind the ear to put them down immediately. I saw the Dutchman shoot two one day with a .62 flinter. One in the heart, one behind the ear. Both dropped like a bad habit. More is better!

 

They actually took their breechcloths off to dry out after seeing this.

not only from pissing themselves from laughing but also from the tears flowing from there eyes from laughing so dam hard. probably had stickers as well from roling on the ground :crackup: :crackup: :crackup: :crackup: :yakyak: :yakyak: :crackup: :crackup:

 

[bulletman]

I would not have gone back to camp to face my mates after that. maybe just go jump off a dang cliff or sumtin.

 

harpman LMAO :crackup:
I bet he had the same look n his face as the little one in your icon LMAO :crackup: :crackup:

 

[musketman]

Today we look at many of those old rifles with awe, and respect, for the craftsmanship, but were they really all that accurate? I'm sure many were.

As in todays market, some muzzleloaders are made better than others...

These people lived and died by their guns, when you shoot every day, you get to know where the gun hits, and you can compensate for accuracy through knowledge of that firearm...

Plus, they didn't have the vast choices we do as far as powders, bullets and patches & lubes, when you have one system, you get good with it or parish...

 

[RussB]

[quote
These people lived and died by their guns, when you shoot every day, you get to know where the gun hits, and you can compensate for accuracy through knowledge of that firearm...

Plus, they didn't have the vast choices we do as far as powders, bullets and patches & lubes, when you have one system, you get good with it or parish... [/quote]

MusketMan....I understand exactly what you are saying, however the part.... "when you shoot every day, you get to know where the gun hits"... is exactly what I have to give thought to if we accept the fact that both lead and powder was hard to come by, and not just setting around by the pound.
Of course, "one system" of bullet, patch and lube is helpful, once mastered in their use and application, but these items cost money...or goods. It is the affordability of the average person, in that time frame, to be able to "afford" to... "shoot every day"... that keeps me in doubt!

Shooting is an expensive "sport". It is today, it was yesterday, and it will be tomorrow. And, It gets no less expensive, even if we have to depend on it for our very own survival.
"The man with one gun is to be respected". I agree with this completely...for the very same reasons you stated.
"The man with one gun, which he can't afford to shoot very often" is a hoss of a different color.

Everyone had a gun in those days, or so it appears. And everyone depended on their personal survival by using this gun. But, I don't think everyone was a "crack-shot", or could even come close to todays "average" shooters. Of course, some were better than others, and they got even better with each telling of their accomplishments.
Owning, carrying, cleaning, careing for, and depending on, does not equal accuracy. :imo:

I consider myself as being somewhere around "average" when it comes to shooting....any shooting. I say that because I have been shooting for better than fifty years, and I have seen how well the "average" person shoots.
The rifles of the Trapper may, or may not, have been as accurate as my own, and I must say mine (with but one exception) are more accurate than I can shoot.

As a side note; I think that Buffalo not going down at 80 yds...after 25 shots, could easily happen today with a new hunter, or with a hunter of that era....if he didn't have the practice, or the experience of both the hunt, and the rifle.
Just thinking out loud, sorry for ramblin.
Russ

 

[musketman]

Maybe he should have shot the buffalo with his ramrod, that would be the 26th shot... :crackup:

I'm sure that would have been the one to dispatch the bison... :winking:

 

[Ravenx]

Target shooting was probably more of a question of the expenditure of powder. Balls could be fired into wood and with use of an axe, recovered, melted down and recast into fresh balls. The plain truth is, if a man couldn't hit his target, he didn't eat. Now, he could probably stalk a lot closer. The Indians surely did to use bows. But few people in any time period of hunting for survival went out with untried weapons. In the Mountain Man era, though, the herds of buffalo numbered in probably the millions. Probably not that hard to get close to an entire herd. But since the mountain man was pretty fond of mountain lion meat when he could get it, he had to have been a decent shot. I tend to think that once a man learned the right load for his rifle and knew that rifle, he didn't need to do formal practice that often as every day of gathering food was practice. If we were hunting at least twice a week and garnering an animal every time, we probably wouldn't need much practice regularly. Being a good shot was a survival skill, necessary if one wanted to eat and keep his topknot. That dates back to the Longhunter era. Shooting matches were one method a man proved his prowess during the longhunter era and probably later at rendezvous as well.

 

[rayb]

Maybe Mr. Russell learned something from the 25 shot experience... he did live long enough to write the book..


rayb