Necessary Complications?

[Vaino]

After many years of handloading for CFs in the quest for ultimate accuracy and all it's complications, I started shooting MLers in 1977 and after reading one book, was amazed as to the ease w/ which accurate loads were achieved w/ my
"starter" rifle...a TC kit .50 cal. Hawken. Used it w/ reduced PRB loads to "head hunt" squirrels and it's accuracy did the job in fine fashion. This rifle has also shot a few deer and elk.

In 1978 built my first flintlock from "scratch" and it had a "homade" TH liner, was .45 cal. and has since "head shot" 100s if not a number approaching 1000 of squirrels. What's this got to do w/ the topic? A lot.

Both of the above Mlers were accurate and "did the job" w/o a whole lot of complications....in fact I was amazed at the ease and simplicity of achieving such a high degree of accuracy.

So...am questioning the need for what I consider unnecessary "frills" in loads, "fussiness" in priming and the reasons why some feel they're necessary.

Some of reasons are "lousy guns" and the reasons that make them "lousy"..... poorly designed "routes" from the nipple to the charge and incorrect location of THs and the design of TH liners.

The quality of the flintlock and it's ability to generate sparks is of prime importance and w/ this component, you get what you pay for. Next to the barrel, this is the most important component of a flintlock rifle and it's function.

The barrel is the rifle and is responsible for the rifle's accuracy and herein lies the "unnecessary" additions to a load that presumably "enhance" accuracy, eg...over powder wads for both PRB and conical. I've gotten excellent accuracy w/ both PRBs and conicals W/O over powder wads and just don't want to contend w/ another load component...especially an unnecessay one. New bbls or poorly rifled bbls cause patch cutting and sometimes the resultant patch burning or lousy patch lubing and then resort to over powder wads.

The amount of priming in a flintlock makes for an erudite discussion, but if the TH location is w/in reason and if the TH liner {if used} is properly designed, ignition should occur irregardless of the amount of prime w/in reason.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that these things shouldn't be discussed, only that shooting a MLer accurately isn't complicated...unless we make it so.

Probably a very important factor asre this topic is the individual and his/her knowledge and common sense that is used to solve the problems that arise. I for one think that "simple" is better than complicated and usually it "works".

There are many more facets to this topic and all opinions are welcome.....mine is probably one of many.....Fred

 

[necchi]

Your right Fred, after I got my first ml rifle within weeks I was getting suprising accuracy at the ranges I expected.

I think what it boils down to is not everyone is a decent shot to begin with, many/most have been wheened on rimfire and centerfire stuff with enhanced optics and stepping back to open iron sights is a struggle for them. They feel it certainly can't be me, I shoot just fine, it must be the rifle. Then they go on this quest for all the bells-n-whistles that should improve the accuracy of the rifle.
Good shooting takes practice, or a knack. Folks don't want to invest that time, :idunno:

 

[nchawkeye]

I agree and have a similiar story...I bought my first muuzzleloader in 1977 from Bob Watts when I lived in Atlanta...It was one he made, had a .45 Douglas barrel and a large Siler lock...I hunted with it until 1990 and killed squirrels, deer, turkeys, rabbits and even won a few local matches with it...

I've never owned a factory made muzzleloader...They never interested me as I knew even when I was in my early 20s that they simply weren't historically accurate...I also never cared for percussion type locks...I grew up with a love of history and went to Williamsburg enough to know what a proper flintlock should look like...

My first trip to the range with my Bob Watts rifle I was cutting holes at 50 yards...

In 1988 I had a run in with a bear and decided a .54 would make me feel better...I contacted a local builder and supplier (the late Bob Hunt)... He was kind enough to help me put together parts of what he felt would have been a common rifle in the Piedmont area of NC during the Revolution...

It took me 2 years to finish my .54 and when finished I rebarrelled the .45 to a .40...They both are very quick and deadly accurate...Not only are they not picky about how much prime is used they are also accurate with different charges down the barrel...

I've worked on and rebuilt several factory percussion guns for buddies of mine and frankly it's pretty easy to see why they are unreliable once you have seen how a muzzleloader should be built....

 

[SgtSchutzen]

I`ve always wondered how some folks can take something as simple as loading and shooting a muzzleloading gun and turn it into somekind of mystery science. I`m sure our forefathers would be laughing their a$$ off if they knew about all the rituals and gadets some folks use nowadays just to shoot a gun. :haha:

 

[BrownBear]

It all reminds me of one of my long departed uncles. The whole family called him Suad, though his name was Bob.

Played a lot of penny ante poker at every family gathering back in the day, rotating deal, nickle limit and three raises. Every time it was his time to deal, he'd hold onto the deck and get to talking, even preaching in the couple of years he tried that gig on for size.

What does the name Suad have to do with all that?

It's short for Shut Up And Deal. :rotf:

 

[nchawkeye]

btw...During my first range trip with my Bob Watts flinter, I felt as if I had done it before... :thumbsup:

I just think some of us are meant to shoot flintlocks... :wink:

 

[RedFeather]

I hear ya. You think some muzzle loaders are bad, try sitting in on an air rifle forum a while. These guys expect to see pin point accuracy all the time and are constantly fiddling with their guns, etc. Coming in to shooting from black powder as I did, it makes me just shake my head. Consider that "fine tuning" is usually changing loads by +/- five whole grains, not tweaking requiring a digital scale. I'm certainly no target shooter but, if I can hit reasonably well, that's fun enough for me.

 

[robtattoo]

Your right Fred, after I got my first ml rifle within weeks I was getting suprising accuracy at the ranges I expected.

I think what it boils down to is not everyone is a decent shot to begin with, many/most have been wheened on rimfire and centerfire stuff with enhanced optics and stepping back to open iron sights is a struggle for them. They feel it certainly can't be me, I shoot just fine, it must be the rifle. Then they go on this quest for all the bells-n-whistles that should improve the accuracy of the rifle.
Good shooting takes practice, or a knack. Folks don't want to invest that time, :idunno:

Couldn't agree more.
Some people just aren't the fantastic shots they think they are. I shoot at the range with a few guys (both ML & CF shooters) who are constantly tweaking loads, fiddling with their sights, altering stuff beyond my understanding to change 'harmonics' etc.... They just will not accept the fact that they're just not the expert, sniper, marksmen that they think themselves to be. Not everyone is a good rifle shot naturally, some need many, many hours of practice & some will never be good shots, but hardly anyone will accept the fact that they are the problem variable in the whole equation!

 

[Zonie]

I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup:

There are a lot of shooters who have learned some very bad habits during their years of shooting CF firearms. Many if these are subconscious and the shooter doesn't even realize they are happening while they fire a gun.

Shooting muzzleloaders, which all take longer to fire than the CF's, magnifies the effects of these habits and brings them out in the open.
The result? Poor accuracy.

It may take years of practice for some to overcome their problems but on the positive side, the relatively low cost of shooting muzzleloaders can allow them to try without having to "sell the farm".
Of course this often requires a trained shooter to be with them and watch what they are doing wrong.
Such a helper can go a long way to solving the problem but first the shooter must admit to themselves that something needs to be fixed.

Then there are those who refuse to admit they are the problem and they will go to no ends to "improve" their muzzleloader to make up for their deficiency.

 

[George]

There are many more facets to this topic and all opinions are welcome.....mine is probably one of many.....Fred

Good topic, Fred. I've given it a lot of thought over the years, and I certainly agree with you that there are many facets to it.

One of the most basic, it seems to me, is that we as modern shooters bring 21st-century mindset to the hobby rather than adopting that of the period. You can pick any one of a thousand aspects of the shooting and see that plainly. Take the problem of fouling and how many shots can be achieved before cleaning is necessary. Just think of the amazing amount of time which has been spent discussing that, how many theories have been put forward to explain it and the solution to it. A million posts? How many magical cleaning/patch lube solutions with what God only knows ridiculous ingredients have been invented? How much wrong information has been passed along to the newbies? How much money has been thrown at the problem, how much energy, time and effort?

At least some of the old boys certainly had a different approach to the problem. An infinitely more simple one, too, which reflects an entirely different approach to the shooting.

John James Audubon, describing a squirrel hunt with Daniel Boone pretty well summed it up in a few words.

"Boone kept up his firing, and before many hours had elapsed, we had procured as many squirrels as we wished ...for you must know, kind reader, that to load a rifle requires only a moment, and that if it is wiped once after each shot, it will do duty for hours."

Spence

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Guess it would be easy pickin's to walk away with all the prizes at Friendship for you guys.

1st My 50 caliber flinter smooth rifle will put them all in the same hole at 25 yds.

2nd If you killed a couple hundred squirrels with head shots at 100 yds, ,, then I might buy your opinion.

3rd. Shooting a 5 shot single hole at 100 yds isn't done out of the box on first or second trips to the range.

4rth Pin point accuracy is not necessarily a factor of patch thickness. Nor is it a magic 74 grains of powder compared to 70. It is a combination of many things, any one of which can cost a half inch at 100 yds. Shooter, consistent loading, consistent lighting, consistent breathing, consistent follow through etc. All the care and skill in the world goes to heck with a bad crown, or a ball with a void in it.

5th reasonable accuracy is attainable with simple consistency, whether the load is 72 or 80 grains matters less, whether the patch is 14 thou or 22 thou matters less as long as the bore is sealed. consistency is the primary factor.

Consistency will only do so much. After that it is a good barrel, fine sights, the best possible load for the rifling etc. If it means my group shrinks by an average of 1/8 inch over 50 shots, then it is worth it. Most casual shooters wouldn't notice or appreciate the difference.

 

[Vaino]

I'm sure your "know how" has rewarded you w/ very tight groups....and evidently you know what you're talking about. But...I don't shoot at game and targets at 100 yds {elk excepted} and couldn't tell you the size of groups shot w/ my flint squirrel LR at any distance, but here's how it was "sighted in".

It's a .45 Douglas 7/8" bbl X42" lg and after reading a book, this squirrel load was decided on for starters...30 grs 3f, .445 RB and an .018 pillow ticking patch. The target was a flap off a book of matches { used to smoke a pipe} and was stuck under tree bark at 25 yds. The sights were filed and adjusted on the spot and shortly the RBs were hitting the cardboard from a sitting position. Needless to say....I was flabberghasted at both the ease in which a load was arrived at and also at the accuracy of this load. This was in 1978 and the load is the same today. Perhaps this sight-in was a little rustic seeing I do belong to a gun club, but it certainly did the job.

All in all...this LR has given many hours of enjoyment hunting squirrels and mostly w/ head hits if I do my part....easy right from the get-go. My other 2 MLing hunting rifles went through the same easy sight-in procedure, although at the range and have killed a few elk and deer.

One thing I've noticed....these MLers shot different from sandbags VS offhand, so I now rest the rifle on my suspended hand when shooting from a sand bagged bench......Fred

 

[RedFeather]

I tend to think that, with any of the shooting sports, it's a matter of whatever floats your boat (or, in this case, birch bark canoe). If you are questing after that one-hole, 100 yard group, then fine tuning all aspects of the shot are what you want to do. If you are hunting deer, getting all of the elements absolutely correct, not so critical so long as you can hit the kill zone. Just so long as shooting doesn't become frustrating or obsessive, you should be OK.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

accuracy is all relative. Kind of like judging a distance. If a guy were to judge a distance as 80 yards and he was within two or three some would say he was accurate. If a man were to be able to come in at 82 yards and be within a foot, he is very accurate. If he uses a tape measure and says it is 82 yards, 7 inches he is darn accurate. A surveyor can measure the distance to the ten thousandth of an inch. even more accurate.

Shooting accuracy can be measured in gongs, game and/or paper target group measurement. Each is for a different purpose. And score is kept differently for each.

 

[Rod Lassey]

I tend to think that, with any of the shooting sports, it's a matter of whatever floats your boat (or, in this case, birch bark canoe). If you are questing after that one-hole, 100 yard group, then fine tuning all aspects of the shot are what you want to do. If you are hunting deer, getting all of the elements absolutely correct, not so critical so long as you can hit the kill zone. Just so long as shooting doesn't become frustrating or obsessive, you should be OK.

Very good point---people's goals are different. My goal is to be historically accurate. Therefore, I'm loading a ball cast from a bag mould, patching with material that 'feels' about the right thickness, lubed with whatever animal grease I have, and priming with the same horn as I'm charging from. Cleanup is with water, tow, and more animal grease/oil. My sights are very low to the barrel, as were the originals.

I don't expect to achieve the same level as accuracy as somebody who's weighing their balls and charges, mic'ing the patches, etc. It's not going to happen, but I derive my satisfaction in knowing that the method I use would be instantly recognizable to someone of the era I emulate. I choose to work within those limitations in an effort to discover how those guys 'back then' used their firearms.

Rod

 

[George]

I choose to work within those limitations in an effort to discover how those guys 'back then' used their firearms.

Hear, hear!

Spence

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The OP said "Both of the above Mlers were accurate and "did the job" w/o a whole lot of complications....in fact I was amazed at the ease and simplicity of achieving such a high degree of accuracy."

See! Suddenly it is hunting accuracy or historical accuracy, not so much on the paper.

Dan'l and Davey didn't make or design their guns. They shot what was available. Daniel was a great explorer and hunter. I haven't read much about his shooting prowess. Davey on the other hand was reputed to be a great shot in all the precursors to the dime novels about him. He was after all a politician who failed to win re-election to congress and went to Texas seeking a political boost .

 

[George T.]

I am like many that have their accuracy standards formed by modern centerfires with scopes. However I enjoy tinkering with my MLR's to try and get a little more accuracy out of them and my self.I guess it would be a good thing to take one diameter ball and one patch material a set charge and be happy. However when I shoot at a game animal , gong or targer I want to know that I have done all that I can to shoot a accurate rifle.There are rifles out there that are not accurate. I bet that Davie did not hang on to a rifle long if it diddn't meet his accuracy standards. Geo. T.

 

[Vaino]

Don't quite understand your post. I related how I sighted in my squirrel rifle and henceforth it "brought home the bacon". A squirrel's head is a small target and any MLer that can consistently hit them in the head at estimated distances, is to me an accurate rifle. I don't know what you consider excellent accuracy, but...perhaps you should go "head hunting" some squirrels? This should be a "fun" topic.....Fred

 

[Claude Mathis]

A squirrel's head is a small target and any MLer that can consistently hit them in the head at estimated distances, is to me an accurate rifle.

Accurate rifle and a hell of a marksman. :thumbsup: