Reading some of the gun literature of the 18th century or earlier always leaves me feeling very surprised and impressed. I think most modern shooters don’t appreciate the understanding the old boys had of what was involved in shooting the guns of the day. Very few things which occupy our discussions today are absent from theirs. I’ve often had the thought that their discussion could just be moved 200+ years forward and we could join in without even a slight hiccup. And we would agree with their take on it to an impressive degree.
Consider this passage from “An Essay on Shooting”, Wm. Cleator, 1789, London. Excuse the length, hope you find it enjoyable.
Spence
Consider this passage from “An Essay on Shooting”, Wm. Cleator, 1789, London. Excuse the length, hope you find it enjoyable.
Would sportsmen only forbear to determine upon the merits or defects of their pieces, until they had given them a patient and impartial trial, by varying the quantity of powder and shot in different ways; we are inclined to think there would be fewer complaints made of the modern fowling pieces. We can assert from our own knowledge, that several gentlemen have hastily parted with their pieces, and thrown a censure upon the maker, which after-experience proved to be undeserved: and we have prevented several of our acquaintance from doing the same, by prevailing upon them to make a farther trial with different charges. The chief source of error appears to be, that of overcharging; and it was generally by correcting this, that we succeeded in removing the bad opinion which had been entertained of many pieces. Every barrel, according to its caliber and weight, has a certain quantity of lead, and a suitable one of powder, which will be attended with greater certainty and effect than any others; and these must be determined by repeated trials. If we increase the quantity of shot above this, we lessen the force of the discharge, and at the same time increase the recoil: and if we increase the charge of powder, that of the shot remaining the same, we also increase the recoil, and disperse the shot much more than before. In every species of fire arms. large charges of powder are found to disperse the shot very much, whilst with smaller charges than are generally employed, it is thrown more steadily and closely. If the object therefore which we are about to fire at be at too great a distance for the shot to take effect, and it happens that we cannot approach nearer to it; we ought not to increase the quantity of powder with a view to the shot being thereby thrown farther, as, by so doing, the increase of the range will be very trifling, whilst the dispersion of the shot will be greatly increased. The only expedient in this case, is, to employ shot of a larger size, the quantity of it, and of the powder, being kept the same as has been already found best suited to the piece.
After what has been said in the preceding chapter, we cannot venture to determine what degree of closeness or dispersion in the shot, will intitle any piece to the name of a good or a bad one; but would observe, that if a fowling piece charged with an ounce of No. 4. patent shot [about US #5], and a suitable quantity of powder, throws 60 grains into a sheet of paper 18 inches by 24, at the distance of 50 paces, we may consider it as very capital, although these are only about one third of the charge; and that the same piece continuing to be fired at the same mark and distance, will not in the mean of four or five successive discharges, throw 36 grains into the paper; in short, that when due attention is paid to finding the suitable quantity of powder, and of shot, one piece will perform nearly as well as another.
Spence