So, having been serving in the Army for the better part of the last 7 years, I've grown acustomed to the holding technique for modern rifles. Does this differ at all to the way you would hold a musket? I've heard you want to place your head alittle further back on the stock so you dont knock your chin off lol. Otherwise I have not heard much.
Proper hold for a musket
- Thread starter Pchandler
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 269
Holding a modern rifle and holding a muzzleloading smoothbore musket require different strategies. First off, there is no rear sight. So accuracy is achieved by always "welding" your cheek in the same place on the buttstock and having the exact same front sight picture. Some shooters see part of the barrel and the sight others use the bottom of the sight to find their point of impact.
The other item is follow through. The flintlock is hundredths of seconds slower than your modern military round so follow through becomes more important than ever.
Flinching can be a problem if you have never shot a flintlock before, practice with a wooden flint can help cure a flinch.
The fun begins if the gun of your choice kicks you in the face. Then getting a good cheek weld can be a problem. My Pedersoli Bess Carbine with 90 Grains of 2F doesn't hurt my face but other shooters do get beat up so you may want to try various arms. Some shooters take care of the stock problem by scooping out part of the wood so their cheek doesn't get kicked.
Many Klatch
The other item is follow through. The flintlock is hundredths of seconds slower than your modern military round so follow through becomes more important than ever.
Flinching can be a problem if you have never shot a flintlock before, practice with a wooden flint can help cure a flinch.
The fun begins if the gun of your choice kicks you in the face. Then getting a good cheek weld can be a problem. My Pedersoli Bess Carbine with 90 Grains of 2F doesn't hurt my face but other shooters do get beat up so you may want to try various arms. Some shooters take care of the stock problem by scooping out part of the wood so their cheek doesn't get kicked.
Many Klatch
I saw this rather interesting piece of equipment, basically it was a piece of sheep's skin (with wool still attached) that was placed over the buttstock, acting as a sort of pad for the cheek. Not sure of it's authenticity and I can't remember where I saw it...but it seemed like an interesting idea...not sure how well that would work though.
In WWII, the US issued rifles with lace on leather cheek pads for the sniper rifles, it's probably something along those lines. I say if you got a spare piece and can try it out without too much hassle, do it. If it works for you, use it. If anyone gives you grief about it, just figure they are just pissed off because they didn't think/do it first. :rotf:
Capt. Jas.
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,059
- Reaction score
- 1,373
I believe that the idea of bringing your head further back on the comb comes from those whose body and face features need more drop at face for a particular gun. It is not proper form by any means and is more akin to putting a band-aid on a severe wound.
Muskets were generally intended to fire in volley and not be aimed. Those put into individual service can be found with dished or rasped out areas to avoid a bite.
The comb pads on civilian guns go back to the 18th century but keep in mind that they will RAISE the comb as well. Here is one that was designed for fit and shot placement as well as protect the cheek.
Muskets were generally intended to fire in volley and not be aimed. Those put into individual service can be found with dished or rasped out areas to avoid a bite.
The comb pads on civilian guns go back to the 18th century but keep in mind that they will RAISE the comb as well. Here is one that was designed for fit and shot placement as well as protect the cheek.
I hold a musket as I would a shotgun. Weight balanced between the hands, head down but not exaggeratedly so (just slightly leaning the upper body into the "point"), pulling towards my shoulder with the trigger hand and aiming/aligning with the foreward hand. Dominate eye centered over the barrel and close to the plain of the upper barrel. Swivel at the waist as needed for target tracking.
Like a shotgun a sightless musket should be pointed.
With a rifle I tend to relax my trigger hand.
Like a shotgun a sightless musket should be pointed.
With a rifle I tend to relax my trigger hand.
I was at first taught that the soldiers of the 18th century didn't "aim" until Von Steuben added the command "take aim" for the Continentals. Then I was shown several sources that mentioned the British issuing the men rounds for target practice. 
The problem then was that if one used the bayonet lug on the Bess as a front sight post, cheek down on the stock, you shot low... but IF used at a target with the "mark" where a man's head would be, the ball falls when properly fitting the barrel, into the chest area at 60 yards or less.
That's fine for combat but not so much for hunting or targets. The British often used a target 2' x 6' and any hit on that was considered good. (Barber c. 1804)
What I have found is that if you don't put your head down, but instead of a "cheek weld" use your chin to contact the stock, you raise your eye slightly as though raising a rear sight. This then compensates for the bayonet lug. The trick is to put your chin in pretty much the same spot against the stock when you do this. I have found it works pretty well with a 28 gauge at 50 yards..., not so sure it's what I'd want to do with an 11 gauge Bess.
The leather stock wrap with pad might be a better option for hunting.
LD
The problem then was that if one used the bayonet lug on the Bess as a front sight post, cheek down on the stock, you shot low... but IF used at a target with the "mark" where a man's head would be, the ball falls when properly fitting the barrel, into the chest area at 60 yards or less.
That's fine for combat but not so much for hunting or targets. The British often used a target 2' x 6' and any hit on that was considered good. (Barber c. 1804)
What I have found is that if you don't put your head down, but instead of a "cheek weld" use your chin to contact the stock, you raise your eye slightly as though raising a rear sight. This then compensates for the bayonet lug. The trick is to put your chin in pretty much the same spot against the stock when you do this. I have found it works pretty well with a 28 gauge at 50 yards..., not so sure it's what I'd want to do with an 11 gauge Bess.
The leather stock wrap with pad might be a better option for hunting.
LD
Capt. Jas.
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,059
- Reaction score
- 1,373
LD, looks like you are spot on it.
Dave's suggestion is adequate if trying to keep a period military approach but is like trying row a boat with a rope compared to good form and making the thing fit you at least half way.
:thumbsup:
Dave's suggestion is adequate if trying to keep a period military approach but is like trying row a boat with a rope compared to good form and making the thing fit you at least half way.
:thumbsup:
I like to have a firm but not tight/scrunched down cheek poisition and when I open my eyes I like to see to barrel just the front sight and the breech llug top. If I do not have this I try to work on the stock to get it or closer to it, a longer LOP than normal can help with some stock profiles, one can have a very good smoothbore fit if building the gun them selves and work the stock/comb while shooting the gun,you can use a portable workbench with v blocks and rasps and scrapers removing wood in between shots and using pellet stove ash, camo cream or something similar to put on your face to transfer the "cheek"/face to show where it lays on the wood and work off wood where the ash shows,you can duplicate this on the other side to maintain asthetics, most pre-carves have plenty of wood to work with,front sight placement can be determined at this time also, sometimes it does not take a whole lot of wood removal to get the fit I think that due to neck and face feature difference many folks struggle with some typs of guns and oher have no problems with the same styl., It might do one well to try a few different types to see what fits the best out of the box so to speak. The addition of a rear sight can also help if one has to scrunch down, it alows one to shoot with the head raised up to align the sights.lots of things to try and if you find the right mix a smoothbore can be very accurate out to 50-75 yds without getting smacked when shooting it.If you are lucky enough to lay your cheek on the stock with a little pressure and open your eyes and have the sight picture wanted the gun may be right on for you and not hurt a bit I have had a couple like this. one may need to bend the barrel for windage and elevation which is common. a combination of wood removal and barrel bending may be needed in some cases I would think. Some of the real gun builders here probably have a better take on this topic than this old novice gunstocker.
Yes, but that was to raise the comb due to the higher mounting of the scope versus the plane of the aperture sights.David Hoffman said:
With muskets, I do what Manny K and StumpKiller opine. Practice, practice, practice that cheek weld until you can do it without thinking.
Any form of "muscle memory" takes literally hundreds of repetitions to take hold in the body.
I also "sight" down the barrel by pretending there is a pencil lying perpendicular to and right above the breech, so that in my plane of view the base of the rear sight is just at the top of the pencil.
Said another way, I need to see barrel, as my muskets taper from the octagonal breech to the round muzzle end, so essentially one is looking 'downhill'.
I'll add that anyone who can master a flintlock smoothie will see ALL of their shooting disciplines improve vastly!
PatrickC said:
You can't use 21st century technique on 18th century equipment. Maybe the worst example of that is some of the Prussian military muskets but Bedford style Kentuckys are pretty horrible too.
The only 18th century well laid out stocks I am aware of are on jaeger rifles and related transitional American long rifles. Maybe early English style, too(?).
I laid out a semi-military musket stock using modern shotgun dimensions and the appearance is authentic to my eyes, but if you are using a stock gun, you may just have to adapt and take your bruises.
------------
Warning on powder container - 'Always make sure no embers are smouldering in the barrel' So I ALWAYS blow down the barrel after each discharge.
Muskets are one thing. Fowing guns are another. English fowling guns can be made to fit the shooter every bit as well as any fine double or custom firearm of any age. For a price (or investment of time with a rasp).
Similar threads
