• 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

Smoothbores at long distance

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

George

Cannon
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
7,913
Reaction score
1,968
When I got my first flintlock smoothbore in 1997 I had considerable difficulty making the transition from rifles with two sights to a smoothbore with only a front one. It took me several months to get comfortable with the gun. I eventually did, but only at fairly short ranges. I fired over a chronograph and found the ball had a near-MV of 1475 fps. With that info I worked out what seemed a good theoretical trajectory for my needs, and decided to sight the gun in at 75 yards. That would put me 1” high at 25 yards, 1 1/2” high at 50 yards, on the money at 75 yards and 4” low at 100 yards. Theoretically. I did sight the gun at 75, managed to shoot a 3 1/2” group close enough to center. That pretty well covered my needs, since I never figured to shoot deer much further than that, if any. That has turned out to be right, and the gun has served me well at all ranges out to 75 yards with a variety of loads, but never beyond that.

I only ever fired one shot at 100 yards back then. Didn’t need to, had no plans for shooting deer at that range. One day my hunting buddy and I were out and I sat down and took a shot at a 2-liter jug, just from curiosity. The calculations said 4” low, and the shot actually was 5” low, correct for windage. That reassured me that my trajectory was reasonably correct.

Between then and now I’ve heard a ton of discussions about smoothbores at long distance, and it seems to be pretty well accepted opinion that they don’t work well beyond 60-70 yards. That doesn’t agree with my impression from my very limited shooting beyond 60 yards, but it has always made me wonder if it is true. Knuckleball, and all that, you know? I took a trip to the farm to shoot a bit at 100 yards today, just to see what I and my old gun could find out. It wasn’t a good day for it, wind 10-20, whitecaps on the pond, bright sun making my old eyes water. I set up a target at a measured 100 yards, shot using a sandbag on the hood of my Jeep. Had to actually stake the backboard down to keep it in place. I was shooting my 20 gauge flintlock smooth rifle, 46” octagon to round barrel, front sight only. I loaded 85 grains Goex 3F, one 1/8” hard card wad, one 1/2” cushion wad lubricated with beeswax-lard, a home cast .600” ball in a .018” ticking patch cut at the muzzle, beeswax-lard-olive oil lube. Primed with 4F Goex.

My homemade target with a white 6" bull was tough to see, I spent a lot of time waiting for lulls in the wind, and it took me a few shots to begin to get it surrounded, get into the rhythm of things, but after a bit I decided to put up a fresh target and shoot for effect. I fired three times before walking down to inspect. I was pleasantly surprised. No fool I, I called that a session and went fishing. Now, if the whitetails will hold still for a few practice shots they are in big trouble, even way over yonder. I hope they think I'm only dangerous out to 60 yards, too. :haha:





Spence
 
I’ve heard a ton of discussions about smoothbores at long distance, and it seems to be pretty well accepted opinion that they don’t work well beyond 60-70 yards. That doesn’t agree with my impression from my very limited shooting beyond 60 yards, but it has always made me wonder if it is true. Knuckleball, and all that, you know?

Thanks for busting that myth
 
That was some productive little day, although a little fishy...
 
Great job, as always, Spence. I've done similar over the years and fond similar results...just don't have the pics. Found my ole .62 would stay in a salad plate size at 100 yards but usually don't shoot beyond 75 or 80. Good to know you got about the same. Makes me feel a little more normal! :wink: :hatsoff:
 
Chartreuse and blue spinner bait.

They bit that at noon, I bit them for supper... seems only fair.

Spence
 
Thanks for that story Spence. Enjoyed it. Hope we all have many more enjoyable days ahead no matter what we do but you sure had a great one. Now if only the ice on the pond would melt!!!

:hatsoff:

Dave
 
Quote:I’ve heard a ton of discussions about smoothbores at long distance, and it seems to be pretty well accepted opinion that they don’t work well beyond 60-70 yards. That doesn’t agree with my impression from my very limited shooting beyond 60 yards, but it has always made me wonder if it is true. Knuckleball, and all that, you know?




Thanks for busting that myth

I'm not convinced it's a "myth". :hmm:

Most "myths" or "wives' tales" come from actual sources, and get distorted over time.

Spence was using a smooth bore with a rear sight and a load intended for optimal accuracy.

Take a trade gun, no rear sight, shoot standing-unsupported, or even kneeling at 100 yards. OH and ad to the mix a ball with a visible sprue. While you are at it, since none of the original references mention using a cloth patch on the ball, load the ball over a wad with tow on top, and see what are the results. :haha:

In the hands of a person who knows how to load his/her particular smoothbore for accuracy, even if you don't patch the ball and there is no rear sight, they can be very accurate out to 90 yards or so.

Even with pre-made ammunition to British army standards, a soldier who has trained to hit marks beyond 50 yards will cause a lot of damage at 100 yards. The hits may not all be "lethal", but either way the target would be "out of action" for the rest of the battle if not for the war.

Lack of training appears to be the key to the "myth"... plus government contractors providing bogus ammo from time to time would not help either...

LD
 
I'm not convinced it's a "myth".

Most "myths" or "wives' tales" come from actual sources, and get distorted over time.

myth

noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or falsecollective belief that is used to justify a social institution


Spence was using a smooth bore with a rear sight and a load intended for optimal accuracy
.

When I got my first flintlock smoothbore in 1997 I had considerable difficulty making the transition from rifles with two sights to a smoothbore with only a front one .




In the hands of a person who knows how to load his/her particular smoothbore for accuracy, even if you don't patch the ball and there is no rear sight, they can be very accurate out to 90 yards or so.

Lack of training appears to be the key to the "myth"... plus government contractors providing bogus ammo from time to time would not help either

I could not agree more, I made my statement based on my experiences with a NW Trade Gun and the potential for accuracy that I have found with it, with no rear sight.

Yet several times a month on this very board somebody will come on and ask about the accuracy of a smooth bore and be swamped with the "myth" that they are not accurate beyond 50 yards.

Spence has proved it is a :bull: argument

:v
 
I agree with some of what you say, but I was shooting a gun with only a front sight, no rear, and my balls do have visible sprues.

This wasn't intended as a test that applies to the old boys' guns, because I don't believe they used patches, and that makes a crucial difference. I know they would never have loaded as I did, with hard card, cushion wad and PRB. This was about the capabilities of smoothbores as they are used today, by hunters and target shooters, under controlled conditions.

I don't think it's appropriate to consider lack of training, shooting position, pre-made ammunition, etc., because those things don't address the capabilities of the gun. The question today is 'will a smoothbore shoot accurately beyond 60-70 yards?', not 'can people shoot beyond 60-70 yards?' I loaded what has been my most accurate load and shot from a rest as carefully as possible in an attempt to separate the capabilities of the gun from those of the shooter. Not entirely possible, of course, but my simple test is reasonable evidence that when the ball "goes to pot" at 60-70 yards it's the shooter, not the gun that's the cause.

I've shot a lot with wads of tow, shredded cedar bark, hornet's nest, etc., with this same gun, and I've been surprised at the accuracy possible with those wads. I shot a few shots yesterday using tow, planned to shoot more, but the wind just got too strong and constant to continue. I didn't have any reportable groups with the few shots I managed, but all were on the 15"x22" paper. I hope to have another go at that part later. Film at eleven. :grin:

Spence
 
It has been my experience that even with an accurate load, without a rear sight repeatable stock placement is what opens up the group.
 
Yes, I agree. Good gun fit is very important when shooting a smoothbore with no rear sight. I think that aspect is one of the reasons we have so much trouble figuring out what the problem is when we fail to get good accuracy with them. Even the slightest change in the sight picture can cause big movement of the point of impact, and the further we are shooting, the more that's true. That makes it really difficult to separate problems with the gun from problems with the shooter.

Early in the 18th century, Benjamin Robins, the father of ballistics, recognized that problem when he began to investigate why the muskets of the day were so inaccurate at long range. First thing he did was take the shooter completely out of the equation by fastening just a barrel down to a block so it couldn't move and running his tests with that.

Spence
 
azmntman said:
What were results of this test??
Ummmm.. you are going to get me in trouble, but OK. :haha:

As described by Wm. Cleator in his 1789 book, An Essay on Shooting:

Mr. Robins secured a musket barrel upon a block of wood, and firing it with a ball, at a board of a foot square, 60 yards distant, found that it missed the board only once in sixteen successive discharges; yet when fired with a smaller charge, at a distance of 760 yards, it sometimes threw the ball 100 yards to the right, and at other times 100 to the left of the line it was pointed in. The direction upward and downwards also, was found equally uncertain, the ball sometimes bending so much downwards as to fall 200 yards short of its range at other times. Yet the nicest examination could not discover that the barrel has started in the least from the position in which it was first fixed.
And then he gives a long explanation of why this happens, long story short, because friction causes the ball to spin around an axis perpendicular to the line of flight.

These tests were with a bare ball loaded directly on the powder, no patch or anything else to stop it rubbing against the inside of the bore as it flew.

Spence
 
Back
Top