What contributes to the accuracy of a ML in it's constructio

[Doug Lykins]

I'm a novice in the building of MLs. I've assembled and finished a kit gun and refinished an existing gun. I do have a considerable amount of experience in the building of very accurate modern center fire rifles.
When we put a centerfire rifle together we start w/ a top quality barrel. I usually select a Hart, Shilen Match, or Douglas air-gage barrel. I have a machinest friend "blueprint" the action. That is to say the face of the action is squared to the bore, bolt face also squared to the bore, lugs milled and/or lapped to complete concentricity to the bore and action. We then lap the bore w/ diamond grit lapping paste to a mirror finish.
Whether a synthetic or wood stock is used the action is pillar bedded into the stock. Normally the barrel from about 1" in front of the action to the end of the forend is free-floated.
Along with well developed loads and doing my part at the bench, I have put together many sub- 1/2 minute rifles.
Okay, I know shooting muzzleloaders is a completely different game. We are not expecting to accomplish anything close to the same level of accuracy,
BUT, what do you experienced builders do to make your rifles as accurate as possible?

 

[necchi]

Well, in short,
Very much the same thing you do with the CF's.
Use top quality components and take the care to have all the components installed properly.
The fine guns of yester year are just like the fine guns of today.
How do you think they learned how to take that much care when building todays guns?

Some guy's use modern techniques with tools, bedding and style referred to today as "Contemporary" builds,, others stay true to the old school build techniques and build replicas of previous firearms.

But accuracy has to do with the quality of the parts, the fit of the parts to the wood and the fit of the gun to the shooter.

 

[MSW]

+1!

what Necchi said ... a good barrel will (imo) make or break your project.

having said that, my flintlocks soot straighter than I do, so I can't complain (at least, not very loudly).

make good smoke!

 

[Vaino]

Most of the domestic bbls produced today are sufficient for excellent accuracy.

A light, crisp trigger pull is a necessity and this can be achieved through a well functioning lock and a properly setup trigger. Either a simple or DST is capable of good accuracy.

Giving full wood contact of the end of the breech is mandatory for acceptable accuracy. Also, elongating the pin holes or key slots in the bbl lugs is always a good idea to avoid interference.

A properly designed stock architecture contributes greatly to the accuracy..... too high or too low a comb makes for less comfort when shooting and if too high could cause "cheekslapping" and the resultant flinching or if too low, some unsteadiness.

Both the front and rear sights should be made and located for varying eyesights. My spec builds have rear sights that are located above the entry pipe finial and have gotten compliments on doing this. Also, the notch in the rear sight should be wide enough to allow plenty of "daylight" on both sides of the front blade.

Because MLing bbls are a lot "heftier" than CF bbls, the stock isn't a big mechanical factor in a MLer's accuray. As is said...."the stock is attached to the bbl"....not the other way around.

Producing an accurate MLing rifle isn't all that difficult....but, the accuracy can be "messed up" by "lousy" loads and improper patch thickness is one of the main causes of inaccurate MLers.......Fred

 

[matt denison]

Muzzleloaders have a lot of mechanical action going on when you pull the trigger. Hammer flying forward, frizzens flopping around, hammer coming to a complete, abrupt stop on the nipple. Things like that. It's is hard to compare to a modern CF rifle with a .2 oz. firing pin moving .040" to fire the gun. So, quick and efficient lock is needed.

Accuracy is relative. It is more or less what we expect. If firing a CF rifle with a 4 power scope we might expect a 3/4" group at 100 yards (My 30-06 will do that all day) However using a traditional muzzleloader with side lock and open sights we are happy with a much larger group and would never expect a 3/4" group at that distance with those sights.

 

[tenngun]

Above is good. You can't shoot what you can't see, and with simple v notch and blade front you most Likly won't be able to see 100 yard target close enough to get small groups. Changing sights will help, but you can't make a pre 1850 rifle traditional and get the sight pitcure you need. After about 1850 long range shooting took off as a sport and developments happened to improve shooting.
Some of us went the other way. Most of my shooting now is with fusils. Even with that you get the best you can afford and fit it as tight as you can, and load as consistently as possible.

 

[ohio ramrod]

I believe the three critical parts of an accurate build are: 1. Good quality barrel ( There are several makers of top quality). 2. Smooth fast acting lock. 3. Solid mounting of barrel and lock to stock. After that it is just a matter of "fitting" the build to the shooter. For the shooter I recommend Dutch Schultz's system to get you consistancy :hmm:

 

[Col. Batguano]

Everything you do in CF rifles will contribute to enhanced accuracy in a ML'er. Lapping the barrel certainly will help.

With those longer barrels in ML'ers you have longer and slower amplitudes in barrel resonance too. Unlike in CF ammo we only have 2-3 powders to fiddle with, and 1 bullet weight. the rest is in the patch and lube, and load compression. Best accuracy in any barrel comes from consistent velocities (more properly bullet dwell time in the barrel) AND the barrel being in the same flex position within the convergence of the multiple barrel flex waves at the time of bullet exit. ML'ers are built around the barrel, rather than around the action. That's the main difference.

 

[Vaino]

Achieving "excellent" accuracy in CFs is much more involved than w/ MLers {excepting BP bench shooters}..... to begin w/, "excellent" accuracy means two very different definitions asre CFs VS MLers.

Did bench shooting for ultimate accuracy w/ a 20lb rifle w/ a 20X Unertl 'scope, have handloaded for many years and trained myself to achieve the smallest group size that I and my equipment were capable of. This undertaking demanded many hours of critical analyzation and a very strict discipline on my part.

When my interest shifted to MLing, mainly because I wanted to hunt w/o contending w/ "modern guns", wanted to build MLers that I could hunt w/ and after doing such, was totally surprised at how little effort produced acceptable hunting accuracy....atarting w/ squirrels and later on hunting for deer and elk.

Squirrel hunting actually offered the greater challenge using a .45 PRB....a squirrel's head is a small target and under sometimes poor light, out of position shooting and many times, not a full view of the squirrel's head.... me, the LR I was using and the load all gave satisfactory results. This just amazed me....and I realized that this was achieved so easily w/ very few "technical requirements". Many "headless" squirrels can attest to the accuracy achieved.

Hunting deer and elk substituted the need for "squirrel accuracy" for other requirements and instead the efforts were comncentrated on a load that had acceptable accuracy and trajectory and had energy and penetration in sufficient amounts to kill these larger animals.

To this day, I'm still amazed at the ease at which all this was accomplished.....speaks well for the versatile MLer......Fred

 

[Doug Lykins]

"When my interest shifted to MLing, mainly because I wanted to hunt w/o contending w/ "modern guns", wanted to build MLers that I could hunt w/"
That's about where I'm at. Producing accurate CF rifles is a money game, the man that has the most money to spend will usually end up w/ the most accurate rifle. There are of course exceptions to this but it is generally true. The simplicity of a ML is the attraction.
A reason I started this conversation is that I have witnessed some very poor accuracy from some very nice looking guns. There was one flintlock that was so bad that I wouldn't bet that I could a 5 gallon pail at 100 yards.

 

[necchi]

Was it the gun or the shooter?
It's always humbling to hand your rifle to someone else and have him out shoot you with it, :wink:

 

[Doug Lykins]

In this case I believe it was the rifle. We tried different patches, balls, etc but we never did get good hunting accuracy from the flintlock. The same shooter on the same day did much better w/ a common TC Hawken.

 

[Artificer]

My profession for 23 out of the 26 years in the Marine Corps was building/rebuilding NM, precision and Sniper Rifles or supervising and finally running the Shop where we built/rebuilt them. Most of the work I still do is on CF military guns and a lot of it involves accurizing to the degree allowed for different types of competition.

I also have over 23 years experience working NSSA Spring and Fall Championships as an Armorer/gunsmith and was the Team Armorer for the United States International Muzzle Loading Team for two World Championships. (Had to give that up after I retired as I could no longer afford it.)

As I'm sure you know, the most fantastically accurate rifle will never make up for a lack of good marksmanship. We used to joke that we "did not issue an X ring gun to an 8 ring shooter," though in fact every rifle we built had to pass stringent accuracy requirements before we issued them.

I bought my first ML rifle when I got home on Boot Camp leave. It was a .50 cal. TC Hawken and I used their accessories and recommended powder charge of 60 grins to shoot it the first time. It was a COLD somewhat windy Iowa winter day in January. I brushed three or four inches off the ground and sat down and took up a good sitting position. The first three shots at 100 yards had the two furthest shots only 1 5/8" apart and I was hooked. Later load development got that 100 yard group down to just over an inch at 100 yards.

Oh, almost 20 years ago I built a standard Infantry Grade Garand for my Dad with the exception I did a trigger job on it, I shot a three shot group from the bench with that rifle at 100 yards and a Quarter more than covered all three shots. Of course my NM and other precision rifles shoot better than that.

As other posters have mentioned, unlike a CF gun, you build an accurate ML AROUND the barrel with the best components you can afford. A well made ML is still going to have more intrinsic accuracy than most people who shoot them and yes, that includes me. I built guns for some of the best shooters in the country, though my eyes never allowed me to break into that rarified group of shooters.

I don't know how familiar you may be with the way they accurized M1903's in the old days. Most of that competition was even before my time. Grin. However, ML's that shoot the best have tight fitting tang/breech areas as well as the very front of the barrel in the stock, VERY much like 03's were accurized before the days of glass bedding and fiberglass stocks.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

In this case I believe it was the rifle. We tried different patches, balls, etc but we never did get good hunting accuracy from the flintlock. The same shooter on the same day did much better w/ a common TC Hawken.

This may well have been the shooter was not used to the additional follow through needed for a flintlock and/or he may have been flinching due to the flint setting off the rifle?

Of course, if the barrel was not good, you won't get good accuracy out of any rifle, ML or CF.
Gus

 

[Pete G]

Main thing that contributes to the accuracy of a muzzleloader is its attachment to the ground.

 

[Doug Lykins]

Main thing that contributes to the accuracy of a muzzleloader is its attachment to the ground.

I reckon that goes without saying.

 

[galamb]

The breech would be the number one suspect.

A poorly fitted fixed breech - so poor contact in the stock OR

a "sloppy" hooked breech.

Either is a recipe for "crappy groups".

The forestock doesn't even need be there on a muzzle loader (but you don't want the front of the barrel bouncing around in any event), but if the breech can move you won't hit the side of a barn.

 

[Col. Batguano]

With those long barrels, the other thing that gets little attention is how and where the fore end is supported. When shooting offhand, the support is relatively soft and support is close to the breach. When shooting rested, the location varies, and type of rest varies. The firmness of your grip, rest contact with the table or ground, barrel temperature, air temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, stock wood relative moisture content, etc. Basically everything matters and can affect group size. The only thing that doesn't matter is whether it's day or night.

All this contributes to an affect on the barrel harmonics, (about 5 different ones going on at the same time with varying frequencies) and the consistency in the harmonic pattern, (as well as the point they are in the wave of each) at the time of bullet exit and during barrel dwell time is what determines group size (assuming consistent hold and bullet acceleration).

So what this says is, that the best load for your gun with the fore arm supported in 1 position may NOT be the best load for the gun with the fore arm supported in a different place, as, the harmonics are different for each. That's part of the reason that center fire guns are generally more accurate. Most of those barrels are shorter, stiffer, free floated, and it really doesn't matter how the fore arm is supported, because there is no contact point with the barrel forward of the action.

 

[MSW]

forgot to give Dutch Schoultz' system a plug: this will shrink your groups guaranteed - here's a link...
http://www.blackpowderrifleaccuracy.com/