Traditional paper patched bullet hunting

[doulos]

Brent ,
congrats and great shot

 

[PreglerD]

Hi Brent,

well done! Congrats and Waidmanns Heil from Germany.

I think that you did a harvest with a traditional rifle and lead bullets and bp, so it is here the right place to post it.

Regards

Kirrmeister

 

[Brent]

Brent is a great looking rifle. What rear sights are you using? Ron

Ron, the barrel sight is a simple patridge sight from Track of Wolf. The rear is a Lyman - it might be a little too modern but I don't have the ability to make a folding lollipop aperture sight.

The front sight is a Lyman 17a with Lee Shaver's crosswire insert.

Here is a picture of the action before it was polished and blued

Brent

 

[Idaho Ron]

Nice looking gun. I am using the Lyman 57 SML peep on My renegades. This rifle has a 1-18 twist Green mountain with Lee Shavers globe with a level.

I am shooting a Lee 459-405-HB Paper patched 386 grain bullet with 80 gr of Pyrodex P. Milk jugs out to 200 yards and a bit farther are in trouble with that load. I haven't had the chance to use it on big game yet.
In my son's 50 he is using a paper patched Lee C501-440-RF. That bullet comes out of the mould at 460 gr. He shoots 80 gr og Pyrodex P and that gun is smokin accurate. He has a Lyman 57 SML and a Lyman 17 AML front with a Lee Shavers fine post insert.

Now on our guns when we what to shoot out to 150, 200, or farther we take a range finding and then move the sight to shoot dead on for the distance we are shooting.
Does that peep on your gun move so you can make changes in the field to take longer shots? Ron

 

[Brent]

No, I cannot field adjust. The two rear sights allow me to work at close range with the 100yd zeroed barrel sight. The aperture sight flips up to be used only when I want to make the longer shot, with a 200 yds zero. The aperture sight is taller than the barrel sight to the barrel sight does not interfere. Any shooting at ranges beyond or closer than 200 yds requires hold over or under which is facilitated with a crosswire insert up front.

All of my cartridge rifles have venier tang sights which allow adjustment while hunting. That is a much superior set up if one has the time for adjustment, but they cannot be used in conjunction with the barrel sight without risk of injury.

I spend a lot of time estimating range distances. Out to 300 yds, I'm fairly good at it, but it takes a lot of practice. Beyond 300, I cannot seem to improve my estimation abilities and the error is too great for me to risk a shot. That said, that 200 yds shot is the longest shot I've ever taken on game with a muzzleloader. I've killed several animals from 200-260 with a Sharps with essentially the same ballistics, but better (adjustable) sights.

Brent

 

[tg]

Which Sharps do you have?

 

[jtmattison]

Holy cow Brent!

Was there any edible meat left? I've never seen so much damage done from one shot.

Congratulations on the great shot.

:hatsoff:

HD

 

[Brent]

tg,
I have an 1874 .45-100 (2.6") model 3 sporter made by Shiloh. It is a go to hunting rifle - when I'm not in Iowa.

I also have a Model 1877 Sharps from Axtel in .45-90 that is a dedicated Creedmoor rifle.


Actually, I got a lot of meat off of that animal, but all the shoulders and rib and neck meat goes to the dogs that eat raw meat exclusively. They don't seem to mind. The backstraps were fine, I'll grill some tonight. So, no waste, but that was defintely not what I had in mind. The only other time I have seen this is a deer I shot up close with a .54 roundball flinter in my backyard.

Brent

 

[tg]

Now and then when we open up a deer there can be surprises particularly with center fire rapid/high velocity projectiles, like you say the dogs have to eat to, I used to keep my Jack Russel out in the shop during the winter and he grew fat and sassy on all the Beaver and other scraps from the trapline.

 

[arw22lr]

Nice shot Brent. I think your rifle is traditional enough. I recall in Robert's book that shooters of the caplock days went beyond the picket bullet to cylindro-conoidal bullets (think that's the right word & sp.) I'll bet many used such bullets for the first shot, and RB for a quick second. His book may state that; it has a chapter devoted to hunting. Peep sights were common in that period, much more than scopes.
I figure if a rifle uses an all lead bullet, black powder (or loose-grained imitation), is flint- or cap-lock ignition, and iron sights then it's fine for a special ML hunting season (unless restricted to flintlock). Looks shoudn't matter. And yours looks fine!

 

[Britsmoothy]

Nice shot Brent. I think your rifle is traditional enough. I recall in Robert's book that shooters of the caplock days went beyond the picket bullet to cylindro-conoidal bullets (think that's the right word & sp.) I'll bet many used such bullets for the first shot, and RB for a quick second. His book may state that; it has a chapter devoted to hunting. Peep sights were common in that period, much more than scopes.



I figure if a rifle uses an all lead bullet, black powder (or loose-grained imitation), is flint- or cap-lock ignition, and iron sights then it's fine for a special ML hunting season (unless restricted to flintlock). Looks shoudn't matter. And yours looks fine!

+1
:hatsoff:

Brit.

 

[tg]

What time period was Roberts around and doing his writting and shooting?

 

[Idaho Ron]

I think the question was, is it traditional, not is it period or historic correct. That is where you are going isn't it? Ron

 

[bingo1952]

Maj. Ned Roberts Born 1866 Died 1948.
Wrote; The Schuetzen Rifle
The Breech Loading Single Shot Rifle
The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle
Just to name a few.
Also developed the .257 Roberts in the 1920's.

 

[tg]

That is what I was thinking the ML era was over about the time he was born, I don't think a lot of his work though good as it is is real relevent to the pre civil war period.As most likely all the gear he was using was developed after the war.I don't think the early percussion cap users woould have had much of the bullets types and knowledge that he used, if we use his work we might as well just continue to the present and anything goes which would bring that type of gun we don't talk about back into the realm of fair play, Bullet designs from the 1880's can hardly be considered fair dinkum for use with guns of the pre 1860's ML guns or be considered trdaitional to that time period any more than the ones that have been developed in the last 30 years, nothing wrong with them, just don't hang the traditional tag on them, it can be rather confusing for those getting started who are trying to get a sense of the history of the guns, sights and projectiles, I don't see what the fascination is in trying to spin so much out of period gear into the realm of traditional, which gear for the most part not only by forum rules but common sense and degree and type of usage takes place long after the ML era has past and the cartridge age has come to stay.Once more, there is nothing wrong with all the connicals that were designed after the ML era, they just are not "traditional" if one does not draw the line some where there is no point in even using the term muzzleloader just call everything that shoots a gun.

"Looks shoudn't matter. And yours looks fine!"

how about the looks of those gun that don't have the lock where it is "supposed" to be?

 

[Brent]

I didn't know that "traditional" was synonymous with precivil war. But be that as it may, Roberts first book does a fairly good job of discussing the evolution of firearms in the latter half of the 19th century, when firearms were changing faster than they ever had before or since.

I also think that there is a fair was a fair bit of knowledge about bullets during the 1860-1880 time period, where you seem to be most conflicted.

In 1874 John Rigby and crew brought their muzzleloaders (mostly .45 calibers) and 500+ gr bullets to Creedmoor NY for the single most famous rifle match in history. They didn't invent that technology the night before they arrived either.

I am not much of a historian where it comes to the Civil War. But there are quite a few accounts of long range shooting using Whitworth and other rifles, purpose built for long range work. They too, were not invented overnight but certainly existed before the war to some degree.

So, ballistically, my rifle was certainly well within the "traditional" period - at least as you seem to define it. The Hopkins and Allen underhammer had not been invented then although trigger-guard mainsprings and near identical mechanisms were old news (see the post on the Kendal underhammers in the gun building forum - gorgeous rifles!).
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/229646/tp/1/

Anyway, what's done is done, and I worked pretty hard to figure out how to make it happen. It took a bit of history and a bit building skill, and a bit of bullet development and a lot of practice. So, I got what I wanted out of it.

I currently have a half built, Alex Henry style of muzzleloader that will also be .45 caliber, will also be fast twist, long range bullet rifle. To disqualify an Alex Henry or a John Rigby or a Whitworth as a traditional rifle seems pretty ridiculous to me but perhaps some of you do. In any event researching what is required to build one, and shoot effectively is a lot of fun for me and a lot of other folks that I know.

Brent

 

[paulvallandigham]

Brent: Bullet technology, and paper patch bullets came into vogue in the 1840s. That is the beginning of the Industrial age, in that both Cheap, mass produced, paper was available in thin thicknesses that were repeatable, as were gun barrels being made of steel. False muzzles came into fashion with the target shooters, and Paper patching was made for use in loading bullets using a false muzzle. Long before the Civil War, the guns and bullets had been designed for long range shooting using these heavy barreled guns, peep, and tube sights, and, just before the war, Scope sights with small degrees of magnification. The quality of the lenses was the limiting factor, until further developments occurred After our Civil War, in the glass making industry.

No one should be surprised at the outcome of the famous Creedmore match on Long Island between Americans, and Irish shooters, nor about the guns they chose to use in the long range shooting, in 1874. They were in development for more than 20 years before the match.

 

[tg]

I guess my point is that most hunters use guns that are for the most part pre civil war many pre 1840 and this being so using a 1870 design bullet hardly seems "traditional" If you are useing a later period gun that is a different story,on the other hand one can take a LGP which is pretty much accepted as a traditional gun circa 1840-60 and add the peep sights off of a modern knight rifle and use a modern bullet designed by Doc White, and switch the barrel to a fast twist and what is the difference between the new gun/acc. and one of the modern gun made by Knight or White...the ignition position? this does not really change the efficency of the gun or offer any advantage like the modern sights and bullets do.there are a lot of later period bullets that were used in the last quarter of the 19th century but they can hardly be considered traditional for the earlier guns, I wish someone would offer replicas of the few bullets that were available in the pre civil war period so folks who want to hunt with traditional gear could do so rather than useing the modern stuff, I often wonder if they would use them as they probably do not perform as well as the later styles.At times it seems that people just like to toss around the term traditional without much thought put into the concept, maybe it is just one of those things that puts some starch in their collars.I am not sure when Hopkins and Allen began making guns but the underhammer design goes back to the 1830's by some sources I have read, and there was an in-line flintlock in 1747 but again it was much different indesign than those on the current modern ML's this is the basic point, to cal something traditional we must consider the time frame and whether the item is indeed based upon the earlier type or designed independant without any known association, it is a slippery slope when we start historicaly classifying things based on a mere terminology.

"To disqualify an Alex Henry or a John Rigby or a Whitworth as a traditional rifle seems pretty ridiculous to me but perhaps some of you do"

only disqualified if talking/recreating a much earlier time in history than the above represent, you would not find one of the bullets for the above guns used in a halfstock caplock rifle in the 1830's-40's, thus it would not be trdaitional for this type of gun, you have obviously done your homework and created something that would likely be at home in the latter part of the 19th century, but as with anything of a traditional nature it is traditional to a particular time and place.

 

[Brent]

TG when I see the word traditional it is applied as something is or is not traditional. That seems to be the case here in that this is a forum for "traditional" muzzleloading, not "traditional to the 1840s or earlier".

I would never lop off the apogee of muzzleloading - the .45 cal long range rifles - from the rest of traditional muzzleloading. After the 1880s or so, there really was no advance in muzzleloading development, though it had been advancing at an exponential pace up to that point. So, to me, the logical terminus of the "traditional" era would be when it reached its highest artform. The .451 Henry, the .450 Rigby and so forth would be that highest artform.

One might advance the idea that the plastic/stainless muzzleloader is further advancement of the muzzleloader, but even so, it comes after a century of stagnation or even decline, so I would not include that as a part of the traditional period, nor does its ballistics, bullets, powder and archetitecture draw much of anything from the 19th century. They are really build from top-down modifications of the 20th century bolt rifle, and are thus not really monophyletic, if you will, will the historical branches of muzzleloading.

In the schuetzen world, with three (or more?) different organizations governing the sport in the USA, a cut off of 1900 or 1917 (World War I and the beginning of anti-gemeranic era and death of popularized Schuetzen) is generally used to seperate traditional vs nontraditional. Yet, a Unertl scope is considered by many to be "vintage" or traditional even though it was a mid 20th century appliance.

Anyway,

 

[Idaho Ron]

I thought this is a traditional hunting forum, not a period correct hunting forum. TG when you try to force period, and historic correctness into a traditional hunting forum that is where the fights start. It doesn't matter if we are talking about a under hammer and a patched bullet or a TC Renegade and a Patched bullet. To me these guns follow the "traditional" sense of the forum. They might not stand up to the strict examination of the period correct police, but these guns were not touted as being Period correct or historic correct.
Are they traditional hunting rifles? Yes as far as most hunting regulations go they are indeed traditional. Do most of the members of this forum view them as traditional hunting rifles? Yes I do believe so. Ron