If I wanted to get (or make from kit) a flintlock that'd allow me the max range on deer sized game, what would you all suggest. I know this is mainly a close in game, and I enjoy the PRB rifle I have, but I'm thinking of getting a flintlock and might be interested in a longer range gun...
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Over 100 yards?
- Thread starter sar
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
hornbuilder
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
sounds to me like you answered your own question :hmm:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
Then buy a centerfire rifle, and forget the flintlock! Really, you are asking to eat your cake, and keep it too. Flintlocks are short ranged firearms. They are designed to shoot RBs, not bullets, so you are restricted by the Ballistic's Coefficient to the range you can effective use a RB for hunting purposes. To get greater penetration, you have to increase the weight of the ball and ball diameter, but that slows the ball and causes a greater drop, or much greater recoil to get the same trajectory over a slightly longer range.
The most accurate long range FLINTLOCK I have shot, or seen shot is one in .40 caliber, and we hit a bang plate hung at 135 yards on a calm day with it. The powder charge was 60 grains of FFFg Goex, with the 90 grain .390 PRB.It seems to shoot " Dead on. " In actuality, the gun had been zeroed for 50 yards, so that the ball was still on the way UP at that distance, and arced higher to reach the 135 yard mark and hit the target within a couple of inches of the aiming point. The ball has a very low B/C, and is running out of gas. I don't know anyone who would recommend the .40 cal. PRB for hunting deer beyond 50 yards, and most would prefer it to be used at half that distance, taking head and neck shots.
The .45 shoots a 127 grains ball fairly well at distance, but after 100 yards, the trajectory drops off rather quickly.
The .50 shoots a 180 grain ball fairly well, too, and obviously carries more energy for penetration because of the added weight. But past 100 yards, it also begins to drop.
I do have a friend who killed a deer at a measured 175 yards with his .62 caliber flintlock, but he built that gun, and knows it in and out, and is one fine shot. Even he admitted he was guessing on the amount of hold-over ( the back of the deer) when he made that shot, as he does not practice taking shots at that distance. The .62 shoots a 325 grain ball, and, while it has the energy to kill game at long ranges, it is also dropping like a brick beyond 80-100 yards, depending on the load. Ball, or bullet, placement is everything with these guns.
Oh, some of these new shooters put scopes on these guns, in hopes of stretching the range, and not ever having to learn how to shoot open sights, or even peep sights. You may be able to see the target at longer distances more clearly, but you still have to figure out how much to hold over the deer to put the ball on target. Frankly, a Flintlock with a scope on it looks pretty silly, to me, but then, I am an old traditional flintlock shooter. To me, that scope would be like putting a jet engine in a Model T Ford.
I make allowances for shooters with vision restrictions who still want to hunt, and make good shots on the game they stalk, but these experienced hunters are not looking for 150 yard Plus shots. They are still stalking to within 50 yards to take a shot.
Short range shooting is what flintlocks are all about. They require a bit more knowledge to shoot accurate, and that adds a handicap to the hunter, that increases his satisfaction when he take game with his rifle.
Do not feel badly about yourself if you are not ready to be that kind of hunter. It often takes years of experience before hunters decide to set aside their repeaters, then go from a single shot cartridge rifle, with scope, to open sights, then to MLers, and finally to flintlocks. We probably draw more flintlock shooters from the ranks of Traditional Bow Hunters, than we do from modern cartridge shooters.
Best wishes.
The most accurate long range FLINTLOCK I have shot, or seen shot is one in .40 caliber, and we hit a bang plate hung at 135 yards on a calm day with it. The powder charge was 60 grains of FFFg Goex, with the 90 grain .390 PRB.It seems to shoot " Dead on. " In actuality, the gun had been zeroed for 50 yards, so that the ball was still on the way UP at that distance, and arced higher to reach the 135 yard mark and hit the target within a couple of inches of the aiming point. The ball has a very low B/C, and is running out of gas. I don't know anyone who would recommend the .40 cal. PRB for hunting deer beyond 50 yards, and most would prefer it to be used at half that distance, taking head and neck shots.
The .45 shoots a 127 grains ball fairly well at distance, but after 100 yards, the trajectory drops off rather quickly.
The .50 shoots a 180 grain ball fairly well, too, and obviously carries more energy for penetration because of the added weight. But past 100 yards, it also begins to drop.
I do have a friend who killed a deer at a measured 175 yards with his .62 caliber flintlock, but he built that gun, and knows it in and out, and is one fine shot. Even he admitted he was guessing on the amount of hold-over ( the back of the deer) when he made that shot, as he does not practice taking shots at that distance. The .62 shoots a 325 grain ball, and, while it has the energy to kill game at long ranges, it is also dropping like a brick beyond 80-100 yards, depending on the load. Ball, or bullet, placement is everything with these guns.
Oh, some of these new shooters put scopes on these guns, in hopes of stretching the range, and not ever having to learn how to shoot open sights, or even peep sights. You may be able to see the target at longer distances more clearly, but you still have to figure out how much to hold over the deer to put the ball on target. Frankly, a Flintlock with a scope on it looks pretty silly, to me, but then, I am an old traditional flintlock shooter. To me, that scope would be like putting a jet engine in a Model T Ford.
I make allowances for shooters with vision restrictions who still want to hunt, and make good shots on the game they stalk, but these experienced hunters are not looking for 150 yard Plus shots. They are still stalking to within 50 yards to take a shot.
Short range shooting is what flintlocks are all about. They require a bit more knowledge to shoot accurate, and that adds a handicap to the hunter, that increases his satisfaction when he take game with his rifle.
Do not feel badly about yourself if you are not ready to be that kind of hunter. It often takes years of experience before hunters decide to set aside their repeaters, then go from a single shot cartridge rifle, with scope, to open sights, then to MLers, and finally to flintlocks. We probably draw more flintlock shooters from the ranks of Traditional Bow Hunters, than we do from modern cartridge shooters.
Best wishes.
sar said:
Depends on what you consider long range.
An acquaintence consistently hits a metalic silhouette at 250 yards, off hand, with his 62 cal flint rifle. He does shoot heavy charges of 200 gr + to achieve that range and accuracy, not to mention that he is an outstanding shot.
He also uses a home made sight with several flip up leaves for long range shooting.
When talking range and flint rifles, larger bores perform better at ranges to 100 yards and beyond, but they require heavy charges to accomplish that performance. So, if you want power and range, IMHO, you are looking at something in a minmum of 58 cal, to as large a bore as you can handle.
A 60 or 62 cal might provide a balance between punishing recoil and long range power.
My wifes cousin just bought a 77 cal rifle he plans to use on elk. I haven't shot it yet, and don't know if I want to shoot full power loads in it.
Just a thought. Early style longrifles or English sporting rifles with wide flat buttpieces are much more comfortable to shoot in those large bores.
I am not advocating shooting game at ranges in excess of 100 yards, I'm simply stating that it is possible to shoot accurately at ranges in excess of 200 yards with large bore flintguns.
Kentuckywindage
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,529
- Reaction score
- 6
I have my .54cal lyman great plains rifle sighted dead on @ 100 yards. If i had a good solid rest out in the field, 100-130 yards would be fine for deer. Elk, i would want 100 yards or closer.
Shooting from yesterday. 2 shots in at the edge of the bulls eye were my final 2 shots of the day.
110g goex ffg, .018 pillow ticking and a home cast .530 round ball. Who said home cast balls wernt accurate? :haha:
You can do 100 yards with a flinter, but you just need to practice pratice and a little more practice.
Also helps to hone your off hand/shoot off a tree branch shooting skills.
Shooting from yesterday. 2 shots in at the edge of the bulls eye were my final 2 shots of the day.
110g goex ffg, .018 pillow ticking and a home cast .530 round ball. Who said home cast balls wernt accurate? :haha:
You can do 100 yards with a flinter, but you just need to practice pratice and a little more practice.
Also helps to hone your off hand/shoot off a tree branch shooting skills.
Heh.
I don't own a modern rifle or a modern bow and primarily hunt with longbows and recurves.
My Lyman GPR is my concession to modern hunting weaponry!
That said, I was curious about the outer limits and whether there was such thing as a longer range flint.
I don't own a modern rifle or a modern bow and primarily hunt with longbows and recurves.
My Lyman GPR is my concession to modern hunting weaponry!
That said, I was curious about the outer limits and whether there was such thing as a longer range flint.
Based on your comments I'd recommend the .58cal...and excellent accurate caliber that will carry energy to longer distances than the small & medium cals, yet is not so heavy that it has a rainbow trajectory.
A Hornady .570"/279grn ball pushed with 120grns Goex has some serious "whompability" at longer than average distances with its good size frontal area and hefty weight, yet its not punishing to shoot...my GM .58cal Flint barrel is incredibly accurate and is definitely what I'd want if I was going to hunt a place where long shots were the norm
A Hornady .570"/279grn ball pushed with 120grns Goex has some serious "whompability" at longer than average distances with its good size frontal area and hefty weight, yet its not punishing to shoot...my GM .58cal Flint barrel is incredibly accurate and is definitely what I'd want if I was going to hunt a place where long shots were the norm
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,537
- Reaction score
- 89
I agree with Roundball. I think the .58 is the best compromise caliber for 100 yard,and a bit more shooting with a ML flintlock.
I am not talking about using one of the round barreled, military replicas, like the Zuave, in .58 caliber. The barrels just are not built for the loads you need to put in the gun to reach out there. I am thinking, Like Roundball, of his excellent T/C rifle with its Octagon .58 caliber barrel, from GM.( Green Mountain) YOu will want to make sure the buttplate is flat, and wider than often found on some of the " Hawken " rifles, for comfort of shooting, but the heavy barrels will take the pressures of heavier loads, and deliver the goods for you. Those 260-280 Grain round balls deliver a lot of " Whompability", and its a nice compromise between the excellent .54 caliber rifles, and the equally fine .62 caliber guns. If anything, the fact that the caliber has so long been associated with the military replica rifles introduced for re-enactors back in the 1950s, has allowed the shooters to over look its fine qualities when surrounded by an adequate barrel.
Do understand that all these large caliber guns use up a lot of lead. You don't use these for plinking, much, or for squirrel hunting! :blah: :rotf: :hatsoff:
I am not talking about using one of the round barreled, military replicas, like the Zuave, in .58 caliber. The barrels just are not built for the loads you need to put in the gun to reach out there. I am thinking, Like Roundball, of his excellent T/C rifle with its Octagon .58 caliber barrel, from GM.( Green Mountain) YOu will want to make sure the buttplate is flat, and wider than often found on some of the " Hawken " rifles, for comfort of shooting, but the heavy barrels will take the pressures of heavier loads, and deliver the goods for you. Those 260-280 Grain round balls deliver a lot of " Whompability", and its a nice compromise between the excellent .54 caliber rifles, and the equally fine .62 caliber guns. If anything, the fact that the caliber has so long been associated with the military replica rifles introduced for re-enactors back in the 1950s, has allowed the shooters to over look its fine qualities when surrounded by an adequate barrel.
Do understand that all these large caliber guns use up a lot of lead. You don't use these for plinking, much, or for squirrel hunting! :blah: :rotf: :hatsoff:
Johnny Tremain
Silversmith in training
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
If there's no concession to accuracy in going from cap to flint, then longer shooting can definitely be done with practice. I don't have enough experience with flint to say, but I've experimented with 50 and 54 cal RB in cappers (both GPRs) out to 300 yards.
For me anyway, hits on smaller targets much past 100 and certainly past 150 require a very accurate gun and superb range estimation, sights, shooting techniques, loading consistency, and a very solid rest. Things get really, really weird when you get much past 200 yards, kind of like shooting a nuckleball as far as I can tell due to ballistic changes as the ball slows way down.
Conicals stay stable lots further, which is the big reason they were used in long range target rifles, sniper rifles, and even Hawkens starting at least in 1846 and leading into the buffalo hunting area, the earliest reference I can find to them being used out West (Hansen). But accuracy still requires those great sights, rest, shooting techniques, loading techniques and range estimation. Short of shooting from a solid rest in a stand at known distances, I wouldn't give much hope of hits on small targets with either RP or pointy bullets much past 150.
I keep saying "small targets" because you have to define acceptable accuracy. I could probably hit some part of a deer out to 200, but that would be acceptable only if I was willing to gut shoot a few while aiming at the lungs. Not on my watch.
But for shooting in warfare where a wound is as good as a kill, yeah, it wouldn't take all that much of a rest to have a good likelihood of hitting an upright, fully exposed soldier at 200. If only his head and shoulders were showing, that's going to greatly restrict your range of certain hits unless you have the opportunity for multiple shots to "dial in" range errors with successive shots. Head shots just aren't going to be made with any certainty past about 150 due to expanding group size in any RB gun I've shot.
The same criteria and limits would seem to apply to lung shots on deer, which I define as the range I can manage a 6" group, even if I manage to accurately estimate the range. When those balls start arcing as velocity drops, the difference between 120 and 130 yards in range estimates can be a really big deal. No prob with a laser rangefinder, but I never seem to find room for one in my own bag.
For me anyway, hits on smaller targets much past 100 and certainly past 150 require a very accurate gun and superb range estimation, sights, shooting techniques, loading consistency, and a very solid rest. Things get really, really weird when you get much past 200 yards, kind of like shooting a nuckleball as far as I can tell due to ballistic changes as the ball slows way down.
Conicals stay stable lots further, which is the big reason they were used in long range target rifles, sniper rifles, and even Hawkens starting at least in 1846 and leading into the buffalo hunting area, the earliest reference I can find to them being used out West (Hansen). But accuracy still requires those great sights, rest, shooting techniques, loading techniques and range estimation. Short of shooting from a solid rest in a stand at known distances, I wouldn't give much hope of hits on small targets with either RP or pointy bullets much past 150.
I keep saying "small targets" because you have to define acceptable accuracy. I could probably hit some part of a deer out to 200, but that would be acceptable only if I was willing to gut shoot a few while aiming at the lungs. Not on my watch.
But for shooting in warfare where a wound is as good as a kill, yeah, it wouldn't take all that much of a rest to have a good likelihood of hitting an upright, fully exposed soldier at 200. If only his head and shoulders were showing, that's going to greatly restrict your range of certain hits unless you have the opportunity for multiple shots to "dial in" range errors with successive shots. Head shots just aren't going to be made with any certainty past about 150 due to expanding group size in any RB gun I've shot.
The same criteria and limits would seem to apply to lung shots on deer, which I define as the range I can manage a 6" group, even if I manage to accurately estimate the range. When those balls start arcing as velocity drops, the difference between 120 and 130 yards in range estimates can be a really big deal. No prob with a laser rangefinder, but I never seem to find room for one in my own bag.
Thanks,
I appreciate the input. I'm trying to limit the number of rifles I buy(well my wife is at least) and was hoping I could get double duty out of one.
Given what you all have said, I may just go in the opposite direction and get a flint smoothbore...
I appreciate the input. I'm trying to limit the number of rifles I buy(well my wife is at least) and was hoping I could get double duty out of one.
Given what you all have said, I may just go in the opposite direction and get a flint smoothbore...
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 1
Mr. sar,
That would certainly be in keeping with your preference for the bow. We are of the same thought.
Best Wishes
That would certainly be in keeping with your preference for the bow. We are of the same thought.
Best Wishes
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
That's next on my list, too.
Longest kill I've made on deer with a ML is 57 yards, and I missed the only long shot I tried, later lasered at 94 yards. I'd sighted in at 100 and done a lot of shooting out there. I even had a good rest for the shot! But I failed to factor in the steep downill, and I shot right over his back. Lots more factors enter into "accuracy" as the range stretches. I popped last year's deer inside 20 yards, and closer to 10, so I'm obviously more of a stalker than a marksman. :grin:
Longest kill I've made on deer with a ML is 57 yards, and I missed the only long shot I tried, later lasered at 94 yards. I'd sighted in at 100 and done a lot of shooting out there. I even had a good rest for the shot! But I failed to factor in the steep downill, and I shot right over his back. Lots more factors enter into "accuracy" as the range stretches. I popped last year's deer inside 20 yards, and closer to 10, so I'm obviously more of a stalker than a marksman. :grin:
Except for buck that stepped out onto an old loggers road at 60 and 70 paces, every other deer I've killed with a ML have been in the 25-40 yard range...and a good shooting smoothbore would have take those two at 60 & 70 also
Kentuckywindage
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,529
- Reaction score
- 6
Smoothbores are fun. I traded for this one many many months ago and am restoring it to use. Shows very good promise with accuracy at 80 yards with a .530 round ball and .018 patch.
Still have to try some shot and see how it does.
Still have to try some shot and see how it does.
Sar, I like you, shoot totally primitive. I shoot the long bow and I have two muzzlestuffers.
One is a custom made J. P. Dickert in .45 cal and the other is a Lyman GPR. The .45 is a flinter and the GPR is percussion. The Lyman is the Great Plains Rifle, meaning it has a round ball twist. They also make the Great Plains Hunter which if memory serves me correctly is a 1 in 28 twist for conicals. Both come in kit form and are easy to assemble. I use my GPR for elk and deer and I live out west where you can have a need to shoot great distances if that is your thing.
I have shot many elk and deer over the years and all but two of them were 125 yds or less even out here. So maybe it's a matter of philosophy, wanting to be a hunter instead of a long range shooter. That's supposed to be one of the lures of traditional muzzleloading anyway. I personally don't see the need to shoot over 100 yds. Just hunt with a muzzleloader like you would with your bow except now you are not limited to 35 or 40 yds and can accurately reach out to 60 or 70 or 80.
Good hunting! :thumbsup:
One is a custom made J. P. Dickert in .45 cal and the other is a Lyman GPR. The .45 is a flinter and the GPR is percussion. The Lyman is the Great Plains Rifle, meaning it has a round ball twist. They also make the Great Plains Hunter which if memory serves me correctly is a 1 in 28 twist for conicals. Both come in kit form and are easy to assemble. I use my GPR for elk and deer and I live out west where you can have a need to shoot great distances if that is your thing.
I have shot many elk and deer over the years and all but two of them were 125 yds or less even out here. So maybe it's a matter of philosophy, wanting to be a hunter instead of a long range shooter. That's supposed to be one of the lures of traditional muzzleloading anyway. I personally don't see the need to shoot over 100 yds. Just hunt with a muzzleloader like you would with your bow except now you are not limited to 35 or 40 yds and can accurately reach out to 60 or 70 or 80.
Good hunting! :thumbsup:
" Just hunt with a muzzleloader like you would with your bow except now you are not limited to 35 or 40 yds and can accurately reach out to 60 or 70 or 80."
That is some very good advise, and an excellant way to approach ML hunting.it is pretty much the type of thinking that got all the ML seasons set up in the beginning.
That is some very good advise, and an excellant way to approach ML hunting.it is pretty much the type of thinking that got all the ML seasons set up in the beginning.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
I agree! Everything you have learned about shooting game with a bow is bonus points for hunting with a ML.
I'm fortunate (from my persective) to live in an area with deer that aren't patterned enough in their habits to allow use of blinds. You either have to reach out and touch them or stalk within range. Zapping them at over 400 yards was easy enough, but boring as heck. Kinda like rerunning the Zabruder film over and over again.
I switched to open sighted handguns and hunted exclusively with them for over 20 years and tagged out every year, with most years featuring a 5 deer limit. Longest measured shot was 77 yards. I coulda been using a bow, and in fact did for some of those years. Guns were just more interesting to me.
As my arms started getting shorter, pretty soon I was having trouble with the open sights on handguns and mounted scopes, even getting a few long range single shot handguns. That pretty much took the fun back out of it, because when presented with 200+ yard shots, I was plenty up to making them with those things.
Losing enthusiasm fast, I finally moved on to ML rifles after a long stint and happiness with a ML shotgun for small game. That's where I struck paydirt.
Sure I have the guns and experience for long shooting. But I'm more of a hunter at heart. There's no bigger thrill to me than spotting a deer way out there and then working to get closer.
I first saw that one I shot at 57 yards at well over 400 yards. Could have zapped him on the spot with one of my scoped centerfires. Nope. Had to work closer. Could have zapped him at 200 with one of my scoped single shot handguns. Nope. Had to work closer. Could probably have zapped him at 100 with my ML rifle. But nope. I WANTED to get closer. I did the deed at 57 yards (paced) only because he was getting kinda twitchy and starting to head for cover. I'd spent an hour and a half having the time of my life getting closer, and I'd have missed all that if I hadn't been getting closer.
The one I shot last year at close to 10 yards was about as much fun, though different in the details. Deer were scarce after a winterkill, and I finally decided to track one down in the fresh snow. Spent a good hour following tracks, going slower and more careful with every step, using the snow to help keep down my noise. I finally jumped it from its bed at something under 10 feet in low brush right on the rim of a steap draw. It made a few hops to my left along the top of the draw, but made the fatal mistake of stopping briefly to look back over its rump at me. Talk about feeling like I'd really been on a hunt!
I'm fortunate (from my persective) to live in an area with deer that aren't patterned enough in their habits to allow use of blinds. You either have to reach out and touch them or stalk within range. Zapping them at over 400 yards was easy enough, but boring as heck. Kinda like rerunning the Zabruder film over and over again.
I switched to open sighted handguns and hunted exclusively with them for over 20 years and tagged out every year, with most years featuring a 5 deer limit. Longest measured shot was 77 yards. I coulda been using a bow, and in fact did for some of those years. Guns were just more interesting to me.
As my arms started getting shorter, pretty soon I was having trouble with the open sights on handguns and mounted scopes, even getting a few long range single shot handguns. That pretty much took the fun back out of it, because when presented with 200+ yard shots, I was plenty up to making them with those things.
Losing enthusiasm fast, I finally moved on to ML rifles after a long stint and happiness with a ML shotgun for small game. That's where I struck paydirt.
Sure I have the guns and experience for long shooting. But I'm more of a hunter at heart. There's no bigger thrill to me than spotting a deer way out there and then working to get closer.
I first saw that one I shot at 57 yards at well over 400 yards. Could have zapped him on the spot with one of my scoped centerfires. Nope. Had to work closer. Could have zapped him at 200 with one of my scoped single shot handguns. Nope. Had to work closer. Could probably have zapped him at 100 with my ML rifle. But nope. I WANTED to get closer. I did the deed at 57 yards (paced) only because he was getting kinda twitchy and starting to head for cover. I'd spent an hour and a half having the time of my life getting closer, and I'd have missed all that if I hadn't been getting closer.
The one I shot last year at close to 10 yards was about as much fun, though different in the details. Deer were scarce after a winterkill, and I finally decided to track one down in the fresh snow. Spent a good hour following tracks, going slower and more careful with every step, using the snow to help keep down my noise. I finally jumped it from its bed at something under 10 feet in low brush right on the rim of a steap draw. It made a few hops to my left along the top of the draw, but made the fatal mistake of stopping briefly to look back over its rump at me. Talk about feeling like I'd really been on a hunt!
Similar threads
