-
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
Reasons for "fliers"?
- Thread starter Skychief
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Skychief
69 Cal.
Interesting that you would mention sights, Richard.
Last night, I shot a different 45 percussion halfstock.
I shot a tiny bit better with it than the original rifle mentioned in this thread,but again, the groups didn't satisfy me.
I mentioned shooting good and tight with my Seneca.....
It wears the standard sights that Senecas left the factory with. A blade or partridge front and a flat topped, square grooved rear. These sights remind me much of some pistol sights, which I have shot well for a long time. I like them.
The two other 45's have bladed front sights. The rear sights are full buckhorn with shallower square grooves cut into them. The rear sight grooves also seem narrow for the thickness of the front sights, not allowing much light on either side of the front to be seen. :hmm:
My eyes are getting no younger. Just received my first progressive bifocal lensed glasses a few weeks ago (oh, the joy of it). That being the case, I have to wonder if some sight pictures will lend themselves to better groups for me, more now than ever before. :idunno:
I sure hope this doesn't sound like a heap of :bull: . I'm just thinking out loud here. I am more than capable of errant shots, but, not much added up to me until this notion came upon me.
Perhaps what I thought looked lined up perfectly shot after shot, wasn't. I can say that I struggled with the buckhorn sights, unlike the crisper ones of the Seneca.
Beyond peep sights, what are some preffered open sights for some others on the downhill side of their mid-forties?
Best regards, Skychief
Last night, I shot a different 45 percussion halfstock.
I shot a tiny bit better with it than the original rifle mentioned in this thread,but again, the groups didn't satisfy me.
I mentioned shooting good and tight with my Seneca.....
It wears the standard sights that Senecas left the factory with. A blade or partridge front and a flat topped, square grooved rear. These sights remind me much of some pistol sights, which I have shot well for a long time. I like them.
The two other 45's have bladed front sights. The rear sights are full buckhorn with shallower square grooves cut into them. The rear sight grooves also seem narrow for the thickness of the front sights, not allowing much light on either side of the front to be seen. :hmm:
My eyes are getting no younger. Just received my first progressive bifocal lensed glasses a few weeks ago (oh, the joy of it). That being the case, I have to wonder if some sight pictures will lend themselves to better groups for me, more now than ever before. :idunno:
I sure hope this doesn't sound like a heap of :bull: . I'm just thinking out loud here. I am more than capable of errant shots, but, not much added up to me until this notion came upon me.
Perhaps what I thought looked lined up perfectly shot after shot, wasn't. I can say that I struggled with the buckhorn sights, unlike the crisper ones of the Seneca.
Beyond peep sights, what are some preffered open sights for some others on the downhill side of their mid-forties?
Best regards, Skychief
I shoot pistols in competition and at times a shot will wander way off.
I asked one of the High Masters why and his response was "you lost your sights", essentially what he meant was I was not focused on my sights.
Glasses, at a time I wore glasses, I went to progressive lenses and my scores plummeted. I cannot shoot with progressive glasses.
My eye sight has changed and I no longer need glasses.
I just came back from the Texas State shoot and was really struggling in one match. My wife said take your sun glasses off. My shots went from being scattered to 9s and 10s. The light had changed and I was so focused I did not see the change.
I asked one of the High Masters why and his response was "you lost your sights", essentially what he meant was I was not focused on my sights.
Glasses, at a time I wore glasses, I went to progressive lenses and my scores plummeted. I cannot shoot with progressive glasses.
My eye sight has changed and I no longer need glasses.
I just came back from the Texas State shoot and was really struggling in one match. My wife said take your sun glasses off. My shots went from being scattered to 9s and 10s. The light had changed and I was so focused I did not see the change.
"Beyond peep sights, what are some preffered open sights for some others on the downhill side of their mid-forties?"
I see it mentioned quite often that as folks get older they move their rear sight further from the rear of the rifle to the front to get it into focus.
I went to T/C Contender pistol sights on my T/C rifles and Lyman Globe sights.
I have opened up the rear sights on some pistols to give a bit of more daylight, seems to help.
I see it mentioned quite often that as folks get older they move their rear sight further from the rear of the rifle to the front to get it into focus.
I went to T/C Contender pistol sights on my T/C rifles and Lyman Globe sights.
I have opened up the rear sights on some pistols to give a bit of more daylight, seems to help.
Skychief
69 Cal.
Thank you Richard for your help/thoughts. :hatsoff:
I shot my fowler this evening, sans a rear sight.
I was able to make several 3" groups at 60 yards with it. I think the writing is on the wall so to speak.
Thanks again, Skychief
I shot my fowler this evening, sans a rear sight.
I was able to make several 3" groups at 60 yards with it. I think the writing is on the wall so to speak.
Thanks again, Skychief
I tried progressive and could not shoot at all (or do anything else). Granted they were "cheap" 2-1 deal but I was so unhappy having to turn my head to stay in focus (VS looking a bit to the side with my eyes) that I returned em and got bi-focals (which I also dont use yet (to shoot). I'm betting the glasses may play a part. All else being consistent and removing murphys law? Try a ropu or three w/yer old glasses and see.
Also the above post regarding using many overlapping targets is a good one which I will use next outing!
Also the above post regarding using many overlapping targets is a good one which I will use next outing!
" All else being consistent and removing murphys law?"
Fliers are caused by one thing, lack of consistency from shot to shot.
Lack of consistency can be caused by:
1. Different ball weights
2. Different amount of patch lube on the patch
3. Different seating pressure on the ball
4. Different changes in lighting
The list can go on forever, change one thing, and here comes a flier.
I keep a page in a book on each gun with details of the load and how it shot, easy to check on how it shot last time.
Fliers are caused by one thing, lack of consistency from shot to shot.
Lack of consistency can be caused by:
1. Different ball weights
2. Different amount of patch lube on the patch
3. Different seating pressure on the ball
4. Different changes in lighting
The list can go on forever, change one thing, and here comes a flier.
I keep a page in a book on each gun with details of the load and how it shot, easy to check on how it shot last time.
longcruise
70 Cal.
You missed the point entirely.
You cannot label any shot a "flier" in a five shot group. The sample is not large enough to register it as anything other than one of the five shots on the paper.
You missed the point entirely.
You cannot label any shot a "flier" in a five shot group. The sample is not large enough to register it as anything other than one of the five shots on the paper.
Nope, did not miss anything.
Some folks base a group on 3 shots, same base a group on 5 shots and pistol shooters put 10 shots on paper.
To eliminate a flier, you have to be consistent, seems simple.
Read Ned Roberts book.
You cannot label any shot a "flier" in a five shot group. The sample is not large enough to register it as anything other than one of the five shots on the paper.
Nope, did not miss anything.
Some folks base a group on 3 shots, same base a group on 5 shots and pistol shooters put 10 shots on paper.
To eliminate a flier, you have to be consistent, seems simple.
Read Ned Roberts book.
Col. Batguano
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,038
- Reaction score
- 1,415
If he did more offhand shooting, odds are he wouldn't notice the fliers. :rotf:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,764
- Reaction score
- 6,905
Skychief said:
Sir, got a request for you.
Can you post a picture that shows the rifling geometry?
Skychief
69 Cal.
I'm sorry GoodCheer, I'm not much of a picture poster. I can tell you that the rifles wear Green Mountain round ball twist barrels, if that helps.
Best regards, Skychief.
Best regards, Skychief.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,764
- Reaction score
- 6,905
Yeah it do.
One of my pet theories revolves around how different rifling patterns behave differently in how well they prevent a ball getting off center.
It's really all a matter of what ball size and patch work best but the groove widths versus land widths do make a big difference. Hence me wondering about it.
Those old rifles with a few narrow grooves in them got me puzzling over it and my interest kinda took off from there.
One of my pet theories revolves around how different rifling patterns behave differently in how well they prevent a ball getting off center.
It's really all a matter of what ball size and patch work best but the groove widths versus land widths do make a big difference. Hence me wondering about it.
Those old rifles with a few narrow grooves in them got me puzzling over it and my interest kinda took off from there.
I have a Green Mountain .54 with a 1:70 twist, I presume that's what you are calling a round ball barrel. If so, here are my specs:Skychief said:
Land diameter .540", groove diameter .560", so groove depth .010", 8 lands and grooves, and the rifling is "radius cut", meaning the bottoms of the grooves and the tops of the lands are concentric with the bore. The lands are 1/2 the width of the grooves, so the cut from top of land to bottom of grooves is at a slight angle.
Spence
Spence, grooves would always be concentric to the bore, round or square (U-shaped) bottoms. Even polygonal rifling is eccentric to the bore. The bore may be eccentric or have runout on one end more than the other, but most builders would put that at the breech end, either to the top or to the bottom, to help keep the sights centered on the barrel.George said:
I also thought radius cut rifling meant they were round bottom grooves, not 'square' or trough shaped bottoms
?Concentric may not be precisely the proper term. What I was trying to describe was grooves cut with a curved cutter, not one straight on the end, as you said. Since the lands are formed by the bit which cuts the bore, the top of the lands are already curved, not straight. Concentric would mean that the circle formed by the bottoms of the grooves would be parallel to that formed by the tops of the lands, and both would have the same center. Con-centric.Flint62Smoothie said:I also thought radius cut rifling meant they were round bottom grooves, not 'square' or trough shaped bottoms
Did I muddy it enough? :haha:
Spence
longcruise
70 Cal.
Yeah, the infamous "gun rag" three shot group! :haha: Followed closely by the slightly less useless five shot group. :haha: Regularly used by the firearms press to make their advertisers products look good. Also used by many shooters to make themselves look good. :haha:
Now, our OP was searching for a solution to a perceived problem. Specifically, "fliers". I was taking the approach of redefining the problem. I still think it's a simple load development problem and a 20 or 25 shot group would help determine that. It's more reliable than three or five shot groups and also more definitive than averaging four or five five shot groups.
Roberts would probably agree with me! :haha:
Now, our OP was searching for a solution to a perceived problem. Specifically, "fliers". I was taking the approach of redefining the problem. I still think it's a simple load development problem and a 20 or 25 shot group would help determine that. It's more reliable than three or five shot groups and also more definitive than averaging four or five five shot groups.
Roberts would probably agree with me! :haha:
