Long range shooting

[user 48702]

Thank you I will!

Idaho Lewis

 

[Redlemur60]

Ditto! I have been fortunate to be blessed with vision better than 20/20. IOW I see at 200 yards what most see at 100 yards. I easily see white tail at 1000 yards and more while those I'm with go "Huh? Where?". But I'm also convinced our shooting ancestors would make me appear blind.

Ive a feeling your right .
Better carrots?

 

[Bushfire]

IdahoLewis was active on the sister forum, then created his own, then quit forums altogether. He had some videos removed by YouTube and then may have removed some himself. I think he got sick of people who don't shoot past 100 yards telling him how he was doing things wrong because of this or that despite the fact he shot incredibly well.

Contrary to what many say about 1:48" twist rifles for balls/bullets and what people say about balls yawing he showed at 600 yards they can still land in the vicinity of where you want to put them.

I really liked him and spoke to him often, regret not getting his off forum email to stay in touch.

 

[TFoley]

Google up, "Idaho Lewis"

Idaho Lewis shoots rifles with high-grade, modern, Rice barrels, made with a precision that was unheard of back in the day.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

If you wanted to join the 1st or 2nd US {Berdan's Sharpshooters) you had to put 10 shots in a 10 inch target at 200 yards. Myself I haven't done much shooting past 100 yards but I have put 5 shots in a 1 inch group at 100 yards with a patched round ball. With the new rifle I am finishing up I intend to be trying it out to 300 yards.

 

[longcruise]

I can consistently get on a 10” circle @100 yds on a good day with no wind. But I would not rely on that shot to put meat on the table. .50 cal Frontier flintlock.

That's about as good as many can do including myself. Just not that many who admit it.

I recently put all five in score areas on the 100 yard standing bear target. Probably o e of my best ever 100 yard targets. Still don't know how i did it!

 

[M. De Land]

IdahoLewis was active on the sister forum, then created his own, then quit forums altogether. He had some videos removed by YouTube and then may have removed some himself. I think he got sick of people who don't shoot past 100 yards telling him how he was doing things wrong because of this or that despite the fact he shot incredibly well.

Contrary to what many say about 1:48" twist rifles for balls/bullets and what people say about balls yawing he showed at 600 yards they can still land in the vicinity of where you want to put them.

I really liked him and spoke to him often, regret not getting his off forum email to stay in touch.

What happened was some folks read his posts that actually compete in mid and long range match shooting (600 to 1000 yards) and know about reading wind deflection ,mirage and trajectory which he seemed to have no clue about and were skeptical of his results being consistently repeatable .

 

[M. De Land]

What happened was some folks read his posts that actually compete in mid and long range match shooting (600 to 1000 yards) and know about reading wind deflection ,mirage and trajectory which he seemed to have no clue about and were skeptical of his results being consistently repeatable .

My guess is after some more shooting he found out they were telling him the truth !

 

[Uncle Miltie]

If you wanted to join the 1st or 2nd US {Berdan's Sharpshooters) you had to put 10 shots in a 10 inch target at 200 yards. Myself I haven't done much shooting past 100 yards but I have put 5 shots in a 1 inch group at 100 yards with a patched round ball. With the new rifle I am finishing up I intend to be trying it out to 300 yards.

They could not achieve this level of accuracy with roundball rifles though: they used bullet guns.

 

[Appowner]

Ive a feeling your right .
Better carrots?

Probably more of them!

 

[Magungo1066]

I know they relied on these rifles for their living and life, but I fail to believe these guys could truly dedicate the time to load development that we do. We mess around with different powders and all crazy manner of loading techniques. I am not saying they didnt put time into it and achieve very good accuracy.

 

[M. De Land]

They could not achieve this level of accuracy with roundball rifles though: they used bullet guns.

That is exactly correct !

 

[billraby]

The schuetzen bullseye targets were 4 inches. They shot them at 200 yards offhand. They used conical bullets instead of round balls and the rifles were highly specialized.

 

[Tenmile]

Look at Harry Pope’s records. But there’s a difference between 40 rods and 500 plus yards. We know that the exact same action performed in the exact same way under the exact same conditions produces the exact same result. Problem is, conditions and actions are never the same. Light, mirage, wind (there’s no such thing as no wind), all change. The butterfly principle is always at work.

 

[SciAggie]

I’ve been thinking about the OP’s question a bit. To answer fully we have to differentiate between the potential accuracy of the rifle and the ability of the shooter.

1) The Shooter:
Some folks are better shots than others. I shot BPCR silhouettes for a number of years. I watched shooters like Steve Garby (SPG lube) finish in the top ranks year after year after year. At times I could match him - but I was never as consistently good. He was simply a better shot than I was.

2) The Guns:
a) Round balls:
As many have pointed out round balls have a poor ballistic coefficient. They bleed velocity quickly and are sensitive to wind. The rifles we hunt with often have sights that offer less precision. In my opinion precise shot placement at small targets beyond 125 is very difficult.
b) Bullet rifles:
These rifles evolved for a reason. There are many examples of long range shooters achieving fine accuracy at extended ranges. I have made 10 shot groups of 2” - 2 1/2” at 200 meters with BPC rifles (from the bench). I have at times shot 4 1/2” groups at 385 meters with the same rifle. I was younger then. This rifle also had vernier sights both front and rear. I think this is very good - but not rare accuracy from this type of rifle.
I’m currently working on a ML bullet rifle to see if I can milk the same accuracy out of it. It has a .45 caliber 1-18” twist Rice barrel and will be equipped with vernier sights.

So my final take on the whole question is that yes, there were some talented shooters who often demonstrated superior marksmanship.

These are my post Thanksgiving musings, lol.

 

[LongWalker]

Major Hanger wrote of an incident in the Revolutionary War in which he and General Tarleton (and a bugler) came under fire from an American rifleman at ~400 yards. Back in 2013, there was some discussion of this on another forum. I got intrigued by the idea (and a bit annoyed by the ongoing discussion coupled with the lack of actual, you know, shooting) so I borrowed an original Dickert and did some testing. Over the course of a few months, I fired a few hundred shots out to (and past in some cases) 400 yards.

Target was a cardboard silhouette patterned on the IPSC silhouette, topped with a white tuque that I never liked. At 200 yards, I shot from a supported offhand position, then again from a "modified prone" position (I laid on the side of a ditch, facing out over the field where my targets were posted). I shot a total of 40 rounds at each range (200 yard supported offhand, 200 yard prone, 300 yards prone, 400 yards prone). I counted any hit on the silhouette as a "hit".

Totals:
200 yard supported offhand: 31 hits
200 yard prone: 35hits
300 yard prone: 30 hits
400 yard prone: 4 hits

This was shooting an original--roughly .48 caliber--rifle, using original sights, and a rather loose patch/ball combination. I used a rest, or shot prone, much as Hanger described riflemen of the day doing. At 200 yards, I was probably going to hit a man-sized target. At 300 yards it was likely. At 400 yards. . . well, it could happen but I wouldn't bet money on it.

I've thought about picking up a Kibler and repeating the tests with the loads and techniques I'd use today. First change I'd make would be to start with a bigger bore: year in, year out, I've found a .54 to be the caliber that does best at longer range shooting with the winds we have here. Fiftys get blown around more, while .58s take too much powder.

Second, I'd use better powder. The tests were shot with some Elephant from '92, and some Goex from '86 (in other words, the odd lots in my powder safe). I'd like to re-shoot it with Swiss or Old Einsford.

But I don't really expect my results would change much.

 

[Magungo1066]

Major Hanger wrote of an incident in the Revolutionary War in which he and General Tarleton (and a bugler) came under fire from an American rifleman at ~400 yards. Back in 2013, there was some discussion of this on another forum. I got intrigued by the idea (and a bit annoyed by the ongoing discussion coupled with the lack of actual, you know, shooting) so I borrowed an original Dickert and did some testing. Over the course of a few months, I fired a few hundred shots out to (and past in some cases) 400 yards.

Target was a cardboard silhouette patterned on the IPSC silhouette, topped with a white tuque that I never liked. At 200 yards, I shot from a supported offhand position, then again from a "modified prone" position (I laid on the side of a ditch, facing out over the field where my targets were posted). I shot a total of 40 rounds at each range (200 yard supported offhand, 200 yard prone, 300 yards prone, 400 yards prone). I counted any hit on the silhouette as a "hit".

Totals:
200 yard supported offhand: 31 hits
200 yard prone: 35hits
300 yard prone: 30 hits
400 yard prone: 4 hits

This was shooting an original--roughly .48 caliber--rifle, using original sights, and a rather loose patch/ball combination. I used a rest, or shot prone, much as Hanger described riflemen of the day doing. At 200 yards, I was probably going to hit a man-sized target. At 300 yards it was likely. At 400 yards. . . well, it could happen but I wouldn't bet money on it.

I've thought about picking up a Kibler and repeating the tests with the loads and techniques I'd use today. First change I'd make would be to start with a bigger bore: year in, year out, I've found a .54 to be the caliber that does best at longer range shooting with the winds we have here. Fiftys get blown around more, while .58s take too much powder.

Second, I'd use better powder. The tests were shot with some Elephant from '92, and some Goex from '86 (in other words, the odd lots in my powder safe). I'd like to re-shoot it with Swiss or Old Einsford.

But I don't really expect my results would change much.

This was a really cool read. Amazing that it was done with an original. Thanks!

 

[M. De Land]

Major Hanger wrote of an incident in the Revolutionary War in which he and General Tarleton (and a bugler) came under fire from an American rifleman at ~400 yards. Back in 2013, there was some discussion of this on another forum. I got intrigued by the idea (and a bit annoyed by the ongoing discussion coupled with the lack of actual, you know, shooting) so I borrowed an original Dickert and did some testing. Over the course of a few months, I fired a few hundred shots out to (and past in some cases) 400 yards.

Target was a cardboard silhouette patterned on the IPSC silhouette, topped with a white tuque that I never liked. At 200 yards, I shot from a supported offhand position, then again from a "modified prone" position (I laid on the side of a ditch, facing out over the field where my targets were posted). I shot a total of 40 rounds at each range (200 yard supported offhand, 200 yard prone, 300 yards prone, 400 yards prone). I counted any hit on the silhouette as a "hit".

Totals:
200 yard supported offhand: 31 hits
200 yard prone: 35hits
300 yard prone: 30 hits
400 yard prone: 4 hits

This was shooting an original--roughly .48 caliber--rifle, using original sights, and a rather loose patch/ball combination. I used a rest, or shot prone, much as Hanger described riflemen of the day doing. At 200 yards, I was probably going to hit a man-sized target. At 300 yards it was likely. At 400 yards. . . well, it could happen but I wouldn't bet money on it.

I've thought about picking up a Kibler and repeating the tests with the loads and techniques I'd use today. First change I'd make would be to start with a bigger bore: year in, year out, I've found a .54 to be the caliber that does best at longer range shooting with the winds we have here. Fiftys get blown around more, while .58s take too much powder.

Second, I'd use better powder. The tests were shot with some Elephant from '92, and some Goex from '86 (in other words, the odd lots in my powder safe). I'd like to re-shoot it with Swiss or Old Einsford.

But I don't really expect my results would change much.

Great information. I've shot steel silhouettes to 200 yards with my .54 and .530 dia. balls using 110 grains of 2F Goex . I remember being able to see the ball coming down like a meteor the trajectory was so arched.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

I’ve been thinking about the OP’s question a bit. To answer fully we have to differentiate between the potential accuracy of the rifle and the ability of the shooter.

1) The Shooter:
Some folks are better shots than others. I shot BPCR silhouettes for a number of years. I watched shooters like Steve Garby (SPG lube) finish in the top ranks year after year after year. At times I could match him - but I was never as consistently good. He was simply a better shot than I was.

2) The Guns:
a) Round balls:
As many have pointed out round balls have a poor ballistic coefficient. They bleed velocity quickly and are sensitive to wind. The rifles we hunt with often have sights that offer less precision. In my opinion precise shot placement at small targets beyond 125 is very difficult.
b) Bullet rifles:
These rifles evolved for a reason. There are many examples of long range shooters achieving fine accuracy at extended ranges. I have made 10 shot groups of 2” - 2 1/2” at 200 meters with BPC rifles (from the bench). I have at times shot 4 1/2” groups at 385 meters with the same rifle. I was younger then. This rifle also had vernier sights both front and rear. I think this is very good - but not rare accuracy from this type of rifle.
I’m currently working on a ML bullet rifle to see if I can milk the same accuracy out of it. It has a .45 caliber 1-18” twist Rice barrel and will be equipped with vernier sights.

So my final take on the whole question is that yes, there were some talented shooters who often demonstrated superior marksmanship.

These are my post Thanksgiving musings, lol.

I am also building a muzzle loader bullet rifle, a 45 with vernier sights. It is primarily for hunting but since I now have access to a 300 yard range I will sight it in to that range and see what I can do. The one variable no one seems to mention is the quality of the powder 250 years ago. I have in the past shot 5 shot 1 inch groups at 100 yards. but not having access to a range over 100 yards was unable to try longer ranges. I do believe given the powder available today with good sights it is possible to shoot a tight group with a patched round ball at 200 yards. Doubt that a round ball would be very deadly at that range though.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Idaho Lewis shoots rifles with high-grade, modern, Rice barrels, made with a precision that was unheard of back in the

Look at Harry Pope’s records. But there’s a difference between 40 rods and 500 plus yards. We know that the exact same action performed in the exact same way under the exact same conditions produces the exact same result. Problem is, conditions and actions are never the same. Light, mirage, wind (there’s no such thing as no wind), all change. The butterfly principle is always

I am also building a muzzle loader bullet rifle, a 45 with vernier sights. It is primarily for hunting but since I now have access to a 300 yard range I will sight it in to that range and see what I can do. The one variable no one seems to mention is the quality of the powder 250 years ago. I have in the past shot 5 shot 1 inch groups at 100 yards. but not having access to a range over 100 yards was unable to try longer ranges. I do believe given the powder available today with good sights it is possible to shoot a tight group with a patched round ball at 200 yards. Doubt that a round ball would be very deadly at that range though.

To see accurate shooting with a round ball at 200 yards it would be good to observe shooters competing in the Gorning match at Friendship, where they use big caliber heavy bench rifles and obscenely large charges of powder.