Muzzle Loading Movie Myth Busters

[beardedhorse]

From The Last of the Mohicans, Natty Bumpo (Daniel Day Lewis's character) or Deerslayer asked for silk to patch round balls in the rifles because he claimed they will throw a ball farther than one patched in linen or cotton cloth. Hard to find some silk .015" thick and seems it would stretch more and not give as tight a fit. Anybody actually test this theory using a similar powder charge, ball size and weight and patching of the same thickness and lube? Silk is not cheap if you buy it retail.
It was in a scene in the movie where a fort courier was trying to outrun the British allied Indians to deliver a message. They kept handing him different rifles and he kept nailing the enemy. How would he know where to sight at longer distance with so many different rifles with different sights and loads? Hollywood hopes you don't ask these questions.
Shooting from a bench through a chronograph would give you the muzzle velocities but you might want to measure velocity further downrange as well but put some sort of shield in front so as not to blow a whole through your chrono. New fangled doppler radar chronos can measure from the side rather than trip two different photo cells.
Or shoot from a bench at 100 yd target and check points of impact but unless heavy bench and a steady rest, might not be dependable based on the shooter. Check five shot groups with the two patching materials.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Even James Fennimore Cooper (the author) didn't make the statement about using silk for patching. To keep the statement in the context of the movie, Bumpo (DDL) just wanted to see Cora's ankles. He slipped in some linen for the shooting. DDL was able to shoot all the enemy because it was in the script.

Do know that during the Battle of New Orleans there were several riflemen that used different rifles in rotation to shoot British Officers. I don't know what the success rate was, but it was significant enough to make that performance into the legendary category.

 

[RAEDWALD]

Do know that during the Battle of New Orleans there were several riflemen that used different rifles in rotation to shoot British Officers. I don't know what the success rate was, but it was significant enough to make that performance into the legendary category.

Maybe so but it was artillery and musketry that did most of the killing.

 

[Artificer]

Maybe so but it was artillery and musketry that did most of the killing.

Exactly right!

And to all, it has been some time since I studied the Battle of New Orleans. So I'm wondering at what distance the American Riflemen opened up on the British Forces?

Gus

 

[tenngun]

I’ve made some outstanding shots, I’m sure everyone has their "gnats eye" shots at a hundred yards. However.....
My real performance is much less. I can remember my fifty yard dove on the wing, tend to forget my many doves missed at half that range.

 

[Kansas Jake]

30+ years ago when my eyes were much better and I was much stronger I belonged to a club that had a gong on a hillside about 110 yards down range. It was about 18" in diameter. We would shoot at it off hand. I surprised myself by how often I could hit it. More than 50% of the time. Several club member were much better at it than I was. I couldn't do it now.

 

[tenngun]

Maybe so but it was artillery and musketry that did most of the killing.

And there was a boat wreck coming down the Mississippi. Many rifles were lost. Most of the Kentucky Rifles were armed with muskets.
Now I wonder these rifleman who had shot rifles much of their lives didn’t improve their accuracy as bit loading them like rifles with patched ball.

 

[tenngun]

Maybe so but it was artillery and musketry that did most of the killing.

You and I and Bob will all have different sighting pictures, and different holds. It might make several inches difference if I pick up your gun or Bob’s.
So if we’re shooting a match we may score real low.
On the other hand, a man has about an eighteen inch by thirty inch torso. Any hit on that sized target is a ‘winning hit’.
Pelvis, gut, shoulder, chest hit will all take a man out of action. Should the best you can do with my gun is eight inch groups at a hundred yards no red coat is going to want to be down range of you.

 

[Many Klatch]

Years back we were having a similar discussion on this forum. Experts claimed that a flintlock couldn't hit a man sized target at 400 yards. So the monthly Forum shoot was a 2' X 6' piece of plywood at 400 yards. 20 shots, how many hits. My buddy Jesse and I drove to Friendship and wired a white painted target to the rail holding the 400 meter silhouettes, It took us a while to figure out the windage. If we were short or long the balls were hitting in the grass and didn't kick up dust. But we finally got our range. I was able to get 3 hits with my .54 and 75 grains of 3F. Jesse got 2 hits with his .50. What we learned was once one man figured out the range, all he had to do was tell the others "See that big whiite Oak behind the troops, the one with the twisted limb? Aim at the second branch on the right and you will have the range." So IMHO the British would have been subjected to fairly accurate aimed rifle fire at 300 to 400 yards. I mean how accurate do you have to be to hit massed ranks. However, Google the legend of "Kentucky's Lone Marksman at the Battle of New Orleans for a British survivors view of that long range shooting