Dixie Jaeger rifle

[bingo1952]

I have had one for several years and it shoots round balls just fine with 80 grains of 2F powder and a .015 patch. Bowling pins fair common at 100 yards.

 

[Renegade Dan]

Just because it has a 1/24 ROT you concluded it won't shoot Patched Round Ball's. :hmm: OK!

ebiggs
I didn't come to that conclusion at all, at least I didn't mean for it to sound that way. :wink: I was hoping to hear from people that have had this gun or something with a similar twist to see how well they would shoot rb. I would like to purchase this flintlock (my first) and would like to use it to compete in our muzzleloading shoots. :thumbsup:

 

[brubincam]

-----saw a guy hammering the load and the **** broke off the lock----- :idunno: -----too much heavy pounding?----- :nono:

 

[tg]

"I've done absolutely no research, and I refuse to believe those who have"

I really think there should be a seprate subforum for the "brotherhood of the uninformed but know it all", so they can continue their exchange on what history should have been like without being interupted by facts and period evidence.it would definatley clear out the other forums of much garbage and missinformation.
Buy a Book, Read a Chaper, Change the World.

 

[cowrustler]

TG, it may surprise you but I've read lots of history books- enough to know that making absolute statements as to the "final" truth generally leads to embarrassment. Not so for some who post here and certainly does not apply to all but there are a number who might profit from a little humility- they may not have all the correct answers.

 

[tg]

". I'm not sure that they shot patched round balls- I think they shot a bullet-like chunk of lead and until I see some sources from the critics, I'll continue to think that."

Sounds like a very limeted background of research speaking with authority and without any period reference, whih is not how the game is played,and no one is dealing in asoulutes only the evidence we have currently at hand to judge from, statements like the one above have no credibility or place in a history based setting.I would suggest some better books, and it is always best not to lead with your chin.

 

[cowrustler]

TG, phrases such as "I'm not sure" and "I think" hardly sound like speaking with authority to me but in the presence of all these experts one probably shouldn't have any opinion but theirs.

 

[Stophel]

And no iron rods or mallets. :wink:

At least not til later on. By the late 19th century wasn't it common for rifles to include a small mallet for hammering a slightly oversized ball down the muzzle?

The earliest I know of mallets is the 1800-1810 period, when British riflemen were issued mallets to help start their tightly patched balls (which, as I understand, were issued with the patches sewn or tied onto the balls). I do not have anything definitive for this, and, to me, it does not seem very practical (the mallets, that is, the tied-on patches are cool), but it appears to have been done at this time. I don't know of any other references to using mallets this early or earlier.

 

[Stophel]

And cowrustler, don't mind me, I'm just being a goofball.

But yes, it is very well established that the Germans were using patched round balls in their rifles from at least the 17th century. :wink:

 

[Okwaho]

TG I would hazard a guess that your supply of pearls has been greatly diminished here and maybe we can find a good source."I think" we can find a good source,maybe some hardboiled eggs from our friend the inestimable Chicken Man out there in the wilds of Iowa. :bow: :v
Tom Patton who finds it unbelievably difficult to be humble and a s_x symbol to boot :thumbsup:

 

[Okwaho]

And cowrustler, don't mind me, I'm just being a goofball.

But yes, it is very well established that the Germans were using patched round balls in their rifles from at least the 17th century. :wink:

True indeed BUT a very well informed goofball especially as to matters Germanic :hatsoff:
Tom Patton

 

[cowrustler]

Stophel, I wasn't trying to start a war here but it seems to me I had read somehwere of bullets being hammered down the bore of Jaegers. Then when I get some smart comments by self-appointed experts, I get my back up.
You put forth some documentation for your views and I appreciate that. No problem with that and you are probably correct. javascript:void(0)

 

[mazo kid]

The local gun shop has a Dixie Jaeger rifle made by pedersoli for sale for $350.00 The gun is in good condition.I looked in the Dixie catalog they go for $995 brand new. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with these rifles and what there thoughts are on it's accuracy and if it is a good sparker. it has 1:24 twist and dixie recommends 95 gr. with .015 patch. Seems like a fast rate of twist for shooting patched ball, what do you guys think? other than a little pitting on the frizzen it Seems like a good deal on the gun. L&R makes a jaeger lock, I e-mailed them to see if it's a direct replacement

OK, as to the ORIGINAL question....what is your hesitation about purchasing the rifle?? The price is definitely right and if you don't like the way it shoots, I'm sure you could always get your purchase price, and more, should you decide to sell it. People who have the Jaegers have responded that they shoot good and they like them, so give it a whirl.

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

Dan,

I agree with Emory, the gun is a good deal as I already PM's you on it. Yes, the Pedersolis do have a fast twist suited for connicals but you certainly couldn't go wrong giving round ball a try. If you don't like the way it shoots for your intended purposes, you can always sell or trade it or consider freshing the barrel.

 

[hanshi]

It's pretty well known that pistols do better with much faster rifling than slow (such as most longrifles). The Jaegers had pretty short barrels, not pistol short, but short nonetheless.

Most short barrels today (OTC) have relatively shallow rifling while the same length rifles of the colonial era had deep grooves. The problem with fast twist grooves and prb is not with the twist but with the shallow grooves. Fast twists and shallow grooves means a chance the prb will strip on the weak rifling with resulting poor accuracy. Make those grooves deeper and they will take a good "bite" on that prb and spit it spinning out the muzzle. To me it's a wonder so many of these factory rifles shoot prb so well even with shallow grooves.

 

[Stophel]

It's pretty well known that pistols do better with much faster rifling than slow (such as most longrifles). The Jaegers had pretty short barrels, not pistol short, but short nonetheless.

Most short barrels today (OTC) have relatively shallow rifling while the same length rifles of the colonial era had deep grooves. The problem with fast twist grooves and prb is not with the twist but with the shallow grooves. Fast twists and shallow grooves means a chance the prb will strip on the weak rifling with resulting poor accuracy. Make those grooves deeper and they will take a good "bite" on that prb and spit it spinning out the muzzle. To me it's a wonder so many of these factory rifles shoot prb so well even with shallow grooves.

Old rifles I see almost always have considerably deeper grooves than modern barrels do.

 

[Stophel]

Stophel, I wasn't trying to start a war here but it seems to me I had read somehwere of bullets being hammered down the bore of Jaegers. Then when I get some smart comments by self-appointed experts, I get my back up.
You put forth some documentation for your views and I appreciate that. No problem with that and you are probably correct. javascript:void(0)

It's the old tale that won't die. Basically, it stems from the desire to say that Americans invented the practice of using patches for their rifles, so that they could be seen as superior to those horrible Germans (who we all know are all Nazis), who hammered their oversize lead balls down the bore with an iron ramrod and mallet.

This simply is not the case (though I would not deny the possibility, even probability, that this might have been done VERY early on in rifle development...meaning 1400's-1500's). By the 1600's, rifles are using patched balls and are equipped with ordinary wood ramrods.

:wink:

 

[cowrustler]

Stophel, thanks for a much appreciated, civil reply, cowrustler

 

[Zonie]

Perhaps one of the sources for the idea of pounding the unpatched projectile down the bore comes from the book, "SPORTING GUNS", by Richard Akehurst, copyright 1968. My 1973 printing by Octopus books limited, London, on page 30-31, speaking of the rifled Jaeger in the 1700's says:

"...An iron ramrod was used because it was customary, in loading, to hammer the bullet tightly down with a mallet. These rifles were normally fitted with a finely adjustable triggers..."

"Pictorial History of the RIFLE" BY G.W.P. Swenson, copyright 1972, Drake Publishers Inc, NY, NY., speaking of projectiles says on page 8-9,
"From the beginning, round balls were used with the rifle, for practical and religious reasons, as the ball was easy to load, and the sphere was associated with the heavenly bodies, and helped to dispel the demonic connotations which became associated with the rifle.
The first explanation of rifling in 1522, by a Bavarian necromancer, was reassuring. The accuracy of the rifle was said to be caused by the fact that no demon could stay astride the spinning bullet, as shown by the sinless rotating heavenly spheres, as compared with the sinful stationary earth..."

Speaking of the mid 1600's the book says:
"The problem of loading the ball was considerably simplified at this time by the introduction of the patch. This was simply a thin piece of greased leather or fustian (double woven cloth), wrapped round the ball, to ease its passage down the barrel. this obviated the use of the iron ramrod and mallet, formerly necessary for forcing the ball down. the exact date of introduction is unknown, but it is discussed in The Art of Shooting and Riding , by Alonso de Espinar in 1644.

At this time the true function of the rifle seems to be unknown. Different schools of thought held:
(a) that the rifling engraved the bullet, so that the grooves acted like the feathers on an arrow, to spin it.
(b) The grooves acted as a retarding factor, holding back the bullet so that the power would have a greater propelling force.
(c) The spiral motion of the bullet made it act like a drill, literally boring its way thru the air.
The greased patch, violating theories (a), and (b) fell into disuse...

The form of the rifle was meanwhile developing...

The rifle in 1700 still used the ball as the only form of projectile, but in 1728 Leutman in the History of St. Petersburgh says 'it is very profitable to fire elliptical balls out of rifled arms, particularly where they are made to enter by force.' " (p 11)

Unfortunately, although references are made to patches being used in rifles in the Americas in later pages of this book, the author does not give much (if any) information about them.

I suppose books like these are the basis for the idea that unpatched balls (or blobs) were pounded down the bores of Jaeger (and other) rifles.

 

[sbhg]

Although my rifle is a capper, I think it shoots pretty good.
I have been getting 3" 3 shot groups at 100 yds. w/ 80 grs. of FFF, .530" B, .015" patches.
I think I could do better w/ a smaller apperature (.200" now) and less pitting in the bore :cursing: .