Maximum effective range of flintlock rifle?

[blafen]

On another forum me and some members are discussing Afghan Jezail rifles, especially there legendary accuracy and range claimed to be 500 to 800 meters in some cases which to me sounds quite optimistic.
So i was wondering, given a large bore rifled barrel of 48" 60" inches and iron sights and a rest for the heavy barrel what is the absolute maximum distance one would be able to hit a man sized target?
And has anyone fired/owned one if these?

 

[kevthebassman]

Well, if a rifle can be made to shoot into 1" at 100 yards, in theory it should be able to shoot into 10" at 1000 yards. Now, theory and reality are two very different things, especially considering the poor long-range ballistics of the round ball.

Now, being from the great state of Missouri, if someone told me that they could hit a man at 500 or 800 yards, I would say "show me."

 

[nchawkeye]

Have you read the account of General George Hanger about when him and Banester Tarlton were shot at by a rifleman??? I can't remember if the shot was 3-400 yards, but I believe it was 400..
And they were very lucky... :grin:

Personally...I could kill you every time at 150, I shoot that pretty regularly...

But the flintlock is capable of much better than that, that's just the limit of my range...

 

[blafen]

I dont doubt the accuracy of a flintlock rifle, i just doubt that using iron sights one could consistently hit a man sized target at 800 meters, it is stated in amny sources that this is the range at which they practiced by shooting sheep (not sure why they such an excess of sheep.) it just seems to me it would be difficult to even see a sheep at 800 meters.

and +10 points to kevthebassman for the josey wales reference, great movie.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I don't see a round ball with iron sights being accurate enough to hit a man much beyond 300 yds. with any regularity. If you use a tang peep sight, and a globe front, technically still " Iron " sights, you might be able to stretch that range out another 50 yards. After that, the B.C. of the Round ball, no matter what diameter, is so poor that any wind is going to make it difficult if not impossible to hit a man sized target much further, other than by luck.

With Conical bullets, its an entirely different matter. Since you don't make it clear in your post what you are asking about, and there are flintlock ignition rifles made to shoot conicals, it would be possible to hit a man sized target at more than 500 yards with the right gun and peep sights.

Most of the large slug gun rifles are fired with an altered percussion ignition system, not flint, underhammers, not side hammers, or side lock, and they use scopes for the long range targets, beyond 500 yards. There are some Black powder cartridge guns, ala " Quigley", that have long range tang mounted peep sights, shooting lead bullets, in front of black powder, and they can hit man sized targets at 800 yards and beyond. That 1/2 mile, and that is a very long shot. Can a flintlock do the same? With the same sights, a quality barrel, well tuned lock, and the right bullet and powder load, I don't see any reason why not. However, the barrel is likely to be much larger than the barrels found on a Sharps rifle, and I think you would have to have a longer barrel to get the velocities with an open ignition like a flintlock, compared to the more closed ignition of a percussion or cartridge gun.

A friend had a Bench Slug gun that fired a 10-shot group at 500 yards that measured 5.26" in width. That gun, with its scope sight, was obviously capable of hitting a man-sized target much further, and probably out to 1,000 yards. Iron sights? Flint? The gun didn't have it, but he was shooting Black powder behind a very large bullet.

I hope that answers that question. :hatsoff:

 

Well, if a rifle can be made to shoot into 1" at 100 yards, in theory it should be able to shoot into 10" at 1000 yards. Now, theory and reality are two very different things, especially considering the poor long-range ballistics of the round ball.

Now, being from the great state of Missouri, if someone told me that they could hit a man at 500 or 800 yards, I would say "show me."

agreed. but would you be that guy @ 500 yds?
:hmm:

 

[blafen]

I believe jezail rifles did not use conical bullets, and i am rather certain that they did not have ladder type peeps sights, some examples i have seen had a solid rear sight with several holes in it lined up vertically, so for longer distances just use the next peep hole up, although getting all those holes to hit at regular intervals seems like it would take a healthy dose of luck.

 

[kevthebassman]

agreed. but would you be that guy @ 500 yds?
:hmm:

I wouldn't stand in front of someone with a pellet gun, and I don't golf in thunderstorms or eat before I get in the pool. So to answer your question; no. But, I can think of worse spots to be in than being in front of a flintlock at 500 yards.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Where does the claim of 500 to 800 meter accuracy come from? This is surely a bit of local folk lore. As others have said, the slightest breeze would drift the ball way off target. The story may stem from the long barrels these rifles usually had and the lack of knowledge of people who saw them being shot. The average inexperienced non-shooter is a poor judge of range.

 

[mykeal]

Actually, I suspect they were used against massed targets at 500 yards and beyond. Shooting 'a' rifle at a British 'square' defensive position or a defensive line of 200 people 500 yards distant would not be unrealistic. The target was perhaps not one man but many, and any strike would be a successful shot. Shoot 50 or 100 rifles against such a target and everyone who pulled a trigger would think they were a marksman even if only 10 people fell down.

 

Kev,

again, agreed. my only point was that incredible shots are made. i wouldnt stand 1000 yds out even if someone was lobbing .45 auto slugs my way.

'maximum effective range of a flintlock'?

MY flintlock that groups in the range that you are talking about? with open iron sights and my 47 y.o. eyes? somewhere in the 200 yd. range, give or take, EFFectively.
:v

 

[Toomuch_36]

Paul is quite right in his assment, I have had lengthly discussions on this topic with a competition shooter from England in another group.
While 300yd. might be streaching it a bit for PRB (I do shoot 200yd.in competition) ranges of 1000yd. are quite common with connicals.

While shots of this type are mentioned in war stories, aside from the random "lucky shot" they were usually made with the aid of a spotter to plot the shot placement, and the final kill shot made on the second or third attempt.

Toomuch
...........
Shoot Flint

 

[slowpokebr549]

Good point Mykeal.

 

[blafen]

Thats why i brought it up, i always figured the 500 to 800 meter mark was more of an overinflated tale someone told.
Although i did not think to factor in the fact that they may be shooting at massed infantry at 5 to 800 meters, but with a roundball that still seems hit or miss.

 

[boomer56]

I think Mykeal has this one figured about right. Bear in mind too, the British never really had a handle on Afghanistan, and were probably a little out of their depth there. Easier to imagine your opponents as uniquely skilled when you don't really know them. Also, the British tended to stay on the valley floors with their horses- so many of these shots would probably have been downhill, giving some slight ballistic advantage.

 

[Stumpkiller]

We should remember the last words of General John Sedwick in 1864.

"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist . . . "

Effective range is a very relative thing. You shoot enough lead at a bunched mass of enough targets and that's one thing. You "call the shot" on a single target at long range that's another.

It was common to have sights calibrated out to 1,600 yards up to and past WWII. That would be a miracle shot, also. But high-deflection volley fire was practiced by many countries none the less.

"Flintlock" also covers a lot of ground. A wall gun with a 1" ball and well regulated sights might be effective to 600 yards in the right hands often enough I wouldn't stand in the open on a sunny day and wait for the gunner's luck to improve or mine to fail.

I'd say for most flintlocks 200 or 300 is pretty far.

If you follow a good story and /or conventional wisdom Timothy Murphy popped General Frazier in 1777 at somewhere between 300 and 500 yards with the second or third attempt. That's still darned good shooting!

 

[mmahlock]

On 4 Feb 1800 at a test of rifles from the best rifle makers in England and around the world that were submitted for evaluation the rifle submitted by E. Baker took the competition hands down by putting 12 out of 12 rounds fired at 300 yds in a circle 5 ft in diameter.

In 1801 the British Rifle Corps established their marksmanship training and established the requirement for a 3rd class rating as anyone who could hit 4 out of 6 in the round target at, at least 200 yds or 3 out of 6 in the man target at, at least 200 yds 2 out of 3 days for two months. The range they set up for qualification set targets at 90 yds for Recruits, 140 yds ”“ Second Range, 200 yds ”“ Third Range, and 300 yds ”“ Fourth Range.

In January 1809 Rifleman Plunket shot and killed the French cavalry General Colbert at a great range unheard of at the time, and to show
it was not a fluke he also shot the General’s Trumpeter.

It has to be assumed from the description of the shots that they were beyond 300 yds.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Jolly good show old chap, I never did care for trumpet music. :haha:

 

[slowpokebr549]

OH JOE, that hit a sour note. :wink:

 

[Emet Huntsman]

I have taken deer out to 150 yards, but that was really pushing my limits. I try to stay 100 yards or less. I do not like tracking wounded game.