:m2c: Hey guys to kind of get off the coning thing a little I'd like to throw this out for discusion. I think a lot of what we do now days creates some of the issues we have. I think for the most part we load with a much tighter patch/ball combo than the old days? Creating a need for a short starter or coning. Also I think they used much lighter loads than we do now days. Much less fouling when loading a follow up shot. What effect if any would the depth of the rifling have? Easier or harder to load? How does the old days compare to current rifling? I'm pretty sure that if there was the possibility of being attacked and I had to use my gun defense I would be able to load quickly and to me that means no short starter. I can back off my patch thickness by .005 and load with thumb presure but the groups open up an inch or so at 50 yards. Now I just don't think I would have cared about that loss of accuracy 200 years ago.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
current use vs old days
- Thread starter Packdog
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Deeper rifling is easier to load - It channels the fouling.
I believe it is certainly true most of the loading was lighter. The 1803 Rifle of .54 cal only used 82 gr of FFg. (3 Drachms). That's my favorite .54 load currently, but most tigers I know start feeding their .54's at 100 gr and then work up.
I believe it is certainly true most of the loading was lighter. The 1803 Rifle of .54 cal only used 82 gr of FFg. (3 Drachms). That's my favorite .54 load currently, but most tigers I know start feeding their .54's at 100 gr and then work up.
Than WHO makes today? It was deeper than most production M/L rifles (0.010 & more), but contemporary makers like Getz, Rice, Long Hammock, etc. still produce that.
The iron of barrels was relatively soft and they would be "freshened" as necessary.
The iron of barrels was relatively soft and they would be "freshened" as necessary.
Guest
:m2c: Loads were lighter in the past when black powder was the ONLY game in town.Rifling was deep, at least .010 or more.
Reason: it gave the fouling a place to accumulate. I doubt the frontiersperson or mountain man swabbed between shots.
Keep in mind also that when the fertilizer hit the ventilator speed loading was the rule. At up close and personal ranges even a ball with no patch would hit a man sized target.
It was not uncommon for a lone person in the wilds to carry his rifle, AND at least two knives plus a hawk.
The rifle also made a good club.
Reason: it gave the fouling a place to accumulate. I doubt the frontiersperson or mountain man swabbed between shots.
Keep in mind also that when the fertilizer hit the ventilator speed loading was the rule. At up close and personal ranges even a ball with no patch would hit a man sized target.
It was not uncommon for a lone person in the wilds to carry his rifle, AND at least two knives plus a hawk.
The rifle also made a good club.
Guest
Yep. The old timers typically used less powder--many original measures would be considered "half charges" today. Also consider that most hunting and fighting took place at close range. Hunters typically cornered or treed bear, for example, with dogs, then shot them at point blank range. In a battle, follow-up shots were often taken without a patch--you can try this yourself after fouling a barrel with a couple of shots--at 25-50yds you will still be pretty accurate. Also, knowing in advance of battle, most would precut patches or prepare paper cartridges. I have seen one original rifle that still had two paper cartridges in its patchbox. Old time rifling was commonly cut deep and had round bottom grooves. :m2c:
Anybody know the depth of rifling on T/C, Lyman or other current rifles?
I have been wondering lately, was the old black powder, say Curtis and Harvey or DuPont, better or worse then what we have? And how do we PROVE it? That could account for some of the differences in charges by the way.
I have been wondering lately, was the old black powder, say Curtis and Harvey or DuPont, better or worse then what we have? And how do we PROVE it? That could account for some of the differences in charges by the way.
I believe modern production M/L are usually given 0.006" or 0.007" rifling depths. Originals & modern "custom" barrels use 0.012" to 0.018"; often with round or radiued grooves instead of angular.
As to powder. I've heard the ond DuPont was the best ever, but would imagine the modern Swiss and Goex is more consistant dur to advances in chemistry and quality control - just a guess.
At .006, man that's shallow rifling. Are Lyman's and Pedersoli's the same as T/C?
I was guessing that modern Goex was probably better, because of a better understanding of chemistry these days. Then again, way back when BP was it they got a lot of experience making it. Some old knowledge, as we know can be lost.
I was guessing that modern Goex was probably better, because of a better understanding of chemistry these days. Then again, way back when BP was it they got a lot of experience making it. Some old knowledge, as we know can be lost.
Guest
Actually, in Ross Seyfried's chronographing, GOEX is about 20 gr. behind (at 120gr. charge) Swiss, which about duplicated Curtis and Harvey's #6 rifle powder. This means it takes 140gr. of GOEX 2F to equal 120gr. Swiss 2F or Curtic and Harvey's#6.
: That English powder WAS the bery best available, with American Deadshot and Dupont being down the list only a bit.
: Not only were the 'old' powders more powerful, they also shot cleaner and left the fouling slighty moist.
: That English powder WAS the bery best available, with American Deadshot and Dupont being down the list only a bit.
: Not only were the 'old' powders more powerful, they also shot cleaner and left the fouling slighty moist.
Speaking from the mountain man's point of view, I believe half charges were used at times depending on circumstance's. I believe a couple of those circumstance's would have been when he was low on powder, or when he was maybe deer hunting in an area he knew for sure and for certain was safe... I doubt he'd waste a shot on a rabbit?
I can not imagine a trapper carrying a half charged muzzleloader while following a river or stream because that's not going to stop a grizzly bear unless your extremely fortunate... Naturally if they were in hibernation you wouldn't have to worry...
No, that's not right. Letting your guard down is what gets you killed... You still have to deal with mountain lions, warring indians, the opposition, the grizzly that didn't hibernate, or woke early.
Remember, fouling will act as a patch to a degree when loading under preasure of an attack. You wouldn't worry about using a measurer either. You just pour from the horn and keep up your fire until your safe, scalped, or ate... :imo:
I can not imagine a trapper carrying a half charged muzzleloader while following a river or stream because that's not going to stop a grizzly bear unless your extremely fortunate... Naturally if they were in hibernation you wouldn't have to worry...
No, that's not right. Letting your guard down is what gets you killed... You still have to deal with mountain lions, warring indians, the opposition, the grizzly that didn't hibernate, or woke early.
Remember, fouling will act as a patch to a degree when loading under preasure of an attack. You wouldn't worry about using a measurer either. You just pour from the horn and keep up your fire until your safe, scalped, or ate... :imo:
Just my opinion, but I bet they didn't have the luxery of burning powder and throwing lead downrange that we enjoy today. I imagine that a six inch group at fifty yards would be hunting accuracy and that's all they cared about. Execpt for a few of the weird ones like us. :m2c:
Guest
"Firearms of the American West" details several 'shoots' or contests/challenges where shooting at a mark produced amazing accuracy, even for today. They didn't take place at 25 or 50 yards, but at 150 yards with round balls. You see, back then, they didn't realize the RB was only an 80 yard projectile.
: Even one of the shotgun challenge took place at 75 yards (paces by a 6' er). In this one, both guns were flint doubles, one, a known strong shooter of 12 bore with 48" barrels and the other a 'short' English 14 bore. The 14 bore easily won, using eley (wire wrapped), shot ctgs.
: Even one of the shotgun challenge took place at 75 yards (paces by a 6' er). In this one, both guns were flint doubles, one, a known strong shooter of 12 bore with 48" barrels and the other a 'short' English 14 bore. The 14 bore easily won, using eley (wire wrapped), shot ctgs.
I believe accuracy was just as desireable and important 250 or 200 years ago. Schutzenfests were going on in the Moravian towns and villages in PA where the gunsmiths were based. A gun that wasn't lovely AND acurate wouldn't bring much prestiege (and business) to a gunsmith. You can bet pick-up shooting events and turkey shoots were going on whenever two or more shooters were in close proximity - just like today. THAT's timeless human nature. Pride(Vanity), one of the original seven deadly sins and still useful.
The good 'ol mark, an "X" carved through charred wood into the lighter undarkened wood, was probably developed a few days after the first projectile was launched.
"So, Brother Jebediah, one hears that thou thinkist thou art one hot marksman. Wouldst thou care to put thy pence where thy pie-hold be?"
A smoothrifle can be pretty accurate, and a round ball only carries so far, so for a smith to take the time and effort to rifle a barrel it is no stretch to believe that he intends on producing some result worth all that trouble. And for the shooter, limited to one shot per minute instead of four or five - why else bother? The gunsmiths at Williamsburg use period tools and techniques to produce rifles that group very respectably, indeed.
What's that work out to? Maybe a 10" circle at 180 yards. 5-1/2" or so at 100 yards. 2-3/4" at 50 yards. All in a squirrel's head at 25 yards. Good enough for my standards.
The good 'ol mark, an "X" carved through charred wood into the lighter undarkened wood, was probably developed a few days after the first projectile was launched.
"So, Brother Jebediah, one hears that thou thinkist thou art one hot marksman. Wouldst thou care to put thy pence where thy pie-hold be?"
A smoothrifle can be pretty accurate, and a round ball only carries so far, so for a smith to take the time and effort to rifle a barrel it is no stretch to believe that he intends on producing some result worth all that trouble. And for the shooter, limited to one shot per minute instead of four or five - why else bother? The gunsmiths at Williamsburg use period tools and techniques to produce rifles that group very respectably, indeed.
What's that work out to? Maybe a 10" circle at 180 yards. 5-1/2" or so at 100 yards. 2-3/4" at 50 yards. All in a squirrel's head at 25 yards. Good enough for my standards.
Guest
Accuracy was and is my point - it was very important and constantly challenged - many today don't give credit for the accuracy actually achieved., They think our modern BP guns are more accurate than the 'originals' were. Most aren't, and I'll add to that that unless the gun has a custom barrel on it, by GM or any other specialist in BP barrels, his/her BP rifle lacks the accuracy of the barrels made on crude equipment, 200 years ago.
: Several are documented of placing 4 or 5 balls on top of one another at 50yards, offhand only 1 hole in the target, with all the balls in that hole - in the late 1700's or early 1800's- with flint rifles. These are certainly attainable by shootng off the chunk TOADY with any good rifle, but there are few people today who have the skill to do that standing on their hind legs. I know that I don't, not any more. At one time, I was close because I rarely shot as close as 50 yds., mostly 100 yards and over. Shooting at that range, when the need arose, was a piece of cake. It seemed so close. If you shoot at 25yards, and sometimes at 50 yards, 50 yards seems a long way out there. It's all relative. 100 yards isn't very far, but if you are on the plains, the prairie, almost evrything is over 100 yards away. You learn to shoot longer distances.
: I have spoken on this forum about making a 2", 5 shot group at 50 yards with my .69, retrieving the patch then reloading, using the same patch for each shot. It was shot standing,unsupported. A 2" group is far from a .70 cal hole, because it's a 2" hole, about 1.3" to 1.5" centre to centre. Like I said, I "used" to be able to shoot that well-not any more. Today, 3" is probably all I could manage, offhand, at 50 yards. I just don't shoot enough with iron sights to improve that level of skill.
; I will add to this, that 10" at 180 yards can probably be done with ANY rifle. That isn't good acuracy. My .69 used to hold 4 1/2" at 200 yards, off the bench. I'd say that was fairly good accuracy. It is only that people today don't realize just how accurate RB's can be or what range really means to a round ball or what they are capable of. Most people today shoot sitting down, and at close range - unhead of back in the 70's and 80's shooting BP - always, we shot offhand. To PROVE a rife and it's load, we shot off the bags, but most all competition shooting was done offhand at from 50 yards to 100 yards, and included shooting 150 yards, 200 meters and 300 meters on steel gong targets. Round balls are MUCH more accurate than most people give them credit for and in the 'old days' were called upon regularly at long (for us) range.
: The guy who usually wins the 240 yard, 8" gong target(offhand) contest at the Hefley Creek, the 10 day shoot,(going on right now) shoots a .45 Green Mountain barreled Long rifle made by my bro. He's 66 years old. One of these days we'll get him to put the flint lock on it and leave it as a flinter. Maybe we'll have a chance, then, maybe.
: Several are documented of placing 4 or 5 balls on top of one another at 50yards, offhand only 1 hole in the target, with all the balls in that hole - in the late 1700's or early 1800's- with flint rifles. These are certainly attainable by shootng off the chunk TOADY with any good rifle, but there are few people today who have the skill to do that standing on their hind legs. I know that I don't, not any more. At one time, I was close because I rarely shot as close as 50 yds., mostly 100 yards and over. Shooting at that range, when the need arose, was a piece of cake. It seemed so close. If you shoot at 25yards, and sometimes at 50 yards, 50 yards seems a long way out there. It's all relative. 100 yards isn't very far, but if you are on the plains, the prairie, almost evrything is over 100 yards away. You learn to shoot longer distances.
: I have spoken on this forum about making a 2", 5 shot group at 50 yards with my .69, retrieving the patch then reloading, using the same patch for each shot. It was shot standing,unsupported. A 2" group is far from a .70 cal hole, because it's a 2" hole, about 1.3" to 1.5" centre to centre. Like I said, I "used" to be able to shoot that well-not any more. Today, 3" is probably all I could manage, offhand, at 50 yards. I just don't shoot enough with iron sights to improve that level of skill.
; I will add to this, that 10" at 180 yards can probably be done with ANY rifle. That isn't good acuracy. My .69 used to hold 4 1/2" at 200 yards, off the bench. I'd say that was fairly good accuracy. It is only that people today don't realize just how accurate RB's can be or what range really means to a round ball or what they are capable of. Most people today shoot sitting down, and at close range - unhead of back in the 70's and 80's shooting BP - always, we shot offhand. To PROVE a rife and it's load, we shot off the bags, but most all competition shooting was done offhand at from 50 yards to 100 yards, and included shooting 150 yards, 200 meters and 300 meters on steel gong targets. Round balls are MUCH more accurate than most people give them credit for and in the 'old days' were called upon regularly at long (for us) range.
: The guy who usually wins the 240 yard, 8" gong target(offhand) contest at the Hefley Creek, the 10 day shoot,(going on right now) shoots a .45 Green Mountain barreled Long rifle made by my bro. He's 66 years old. One of these days we'll get him to put the flint lock on it and leave it as a flinter. Maybe we'll have a chance, then, maybe.
In Hanson's book, "The Plains Rifle" I think the general standard for accuracy for the heavy plains type(mountain) rifle was a twelve inch bullseye at 200 yards. With open sights and round balls that's good shoot'n. There was mention that iron(rather than steel) barrels were more tolerant of powder charge variations, in other words you could be off a little on the charge and the gun would still shoot to the same point of aim. Why I don't know but it probably made the rifle better in a firefire with Indians.
ValleyForge
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
Yo, Packdog -
If you read the old James Fenimore Cooper Novels written from the 1830s - 1850s, they cared quite a bit. His main character "Leatherstocking" (or Deerslayer or Natty Bumppo, depending on which book it is)takes great pride in his accuracy, and the books are full of shooting contests. At one competition, it looks like Deerslayer's missed the target entirely (..hey, I can do that!)! But upon closer examination, it's revealed that he put ball #2 directly over ball #1, without fraying the edges from the 1st hole.
Now that is concern over accuracy! Mark Twain said Leatherstocking could hunt flies with a rifle "and command a ducal salary in a Wild West Show"
Hope that sheds some light.
-- Valley Forge
If you read the old James Fenimore Cooper Novels written from the 1830s - 1850s, they cared quite a bit. His main character "Leatherstocking" (or Deerslayer or Natty Bumppo, depending on which book it is)takes great pride in his accuracy, and the books are full of shooting contests. At one competition, it looks like Deerslayer's missed the target entirely (..hey, I can do that!)! But upon closer examination, it's revealed that he put ball #2 directly over ball #1, without fraying the edges from the 1st hole.
Now that is concern over accuracy! Mark Twain said Leatherstocking could hunt flies with a rifle "and command a ducal salary in a Wild West Show"
Hope that sheds some light.
-- Valley Forge
"But upon closer examination, it's revealed that he put ball #2 directly over ball #1, without fraying the edges from the 1st hole."
Now I had never thought of that, it certainly explains my first trip out with my NW gun a few years back when there was only one hole in the paper after five shots...
Now I had never thought of that, it certainly explains my first trip out with my NW gun a few years back when there was only one hole in the paper after five shots...
ValleyForge
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah. I seem to consistenly reach that level of accuracy....
