Who Is The Better Shot?

[Dr5x]

It never crossed my mind to compare apples with oranges or muzzleloaders with modern rifles as far as accuracy is concerned..
I had my several one hole groups bench rest at 50 yards but never witnessed results like those from the usual deer hunting rifle used which I believe to be in the .30 caliber area. During "Zeroing In" season I did some coaching of the modern folk hoping to speed them on their way.
I always figured the modern rifle had the advantage but now i'm not so certain.I believe the modern rifle might have some advantages when shooting the longer ranges but I don't know about the under 100 yard ranges.
I converted a number of those folks to muzzleloaders because they thought their T/C hawkers were more accurate than the rifles they had previously been shooting.
I THINK WE MAY HAVE THEM WITH ALL THE FIDDLES AND AJUSTMENTS WE CAN DO TO FINE TUNE OUR RIFLES.IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TOHAVE THE MODERN RIFLE CONDEMED TO USING AMMUNITION OUT OF THE BOX. WE NEED TO COMPETE WITH A CARTIDGE RELOADER.
DOES ANYONE KNOW SUCH A PERSON WHO WILL GIVE US FIVE SHOTS, BENCH REST AT A THREE INCH BLACK ROUND TARGET AT 50 YARDS? THAT WILL SET OUR BASE AND WE WILL SEE WHO COMES CLOSEST OR EXCEEDS THE ALLEGED SUPERIOR RIFLE.
THERE'S THE CONTEST I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR I ALREADY HAVE THE PRIZE SELECTED.
AS I THINK I;M SO HOT, I WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO COMPETE BESIDES MY RIFLES ARE IN KANSAS CITY WHERE THEY LIE CRYING OUT "DADDY. DADDY" BUT I CAN NO LONGER HEAR.
THE 3 INCH TARFET I OFFER IN MY BOOK WILL DO BUT ANY BLACK CIRCLE, 3 INCHES IN DIAMETER WILL DO.
DUTCH SCHOULTZ

 

[Darkhorse]

Will these do for reference until someone posts a group better suited ? Neither is at 50 yards, both are at 100. Even with a 10X scope at 100 yards these old eyes have a hard time shooting any better for 5 shots.
FWIW, I know my CF's with my handloads will outshoot my flinters. I know this because of all the hours spent at the bench testing loads.

 

[Dr5x]

Will these do for reference until someone posts a group better suited ? Neither is at 50 yards, both are at 100. Even with a 10X scope at 100 yards these old eyes have a hard time shooting any better for 5 shots.
FWIW, I know my CF's with my handloads will outshoot my flinters. I know this because of all the hours spent at the bench testing loads.

Those are amazing targets and they both support my ideas about modern rifles at longer ranges.. Both were fired in 2014 and I can see why you saved them.

What I want from a reloader is 5 shots fired at 50 yards. Can you help me on that?
Dutch Schoultz

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Watch closely and ...Poof they are gone.

 

[mushka]

Who is the better shot? It is he who hits the target the fastest with the mostes. The modern unmentionables are a detriment to most shooters and hunters with all their noise and recoil. It doesn't make them good shots, it makes them jerk their triggers and flinch a lot. A good MZ rifle with a good load will not do these things to a person.

 

[Tom A Hawk]

Those are amazing targets and they both support my ideas about modern rifles at longer ranges.. Both were fired in 2014 and I can see why you saved them.

What I want from a reloader is 5 shots fired at 50 yards. Can you help me on that?
Dutch Schoultz

Dutch, at 50 yards and off a bench, it would only be one hole. I have several calibers capable of that.

 

[brewer12345]

I think that muzzleloaders can be very accurate if you put the time and effort in. Cartridge firearms using jacketed bullets often have greater accuracy with common factory ammunition and handloaders can tweak things better than that. Does it matter to the deer within 100 yards? Not that I can tell. The paper targets don't complain either.

 

[tenngun]

Fifty yards from rest v notch rear sight, silver blade front, would the group have been smaller with a scope or even good iron sights? I don’t know, but I feel I can hit what I can see.
My smoothies shoot pretty good and can out shoot most archers, but some archers can out shoot a good rifle in range. There a shooter or two that compleat at ranges near a mile, and dart throwers throw at twelve feet. The fun of ml is working within its limitations

 

[Darkhorse]

Those are amazing targets and they both support my ideas about modern rifles at longer ranges.. Both were fired in 2014 and I can see why you saved them.

What I want from a reloader is 5 shots fired at 50 yards. Can you help me on that?
Dutch Schoultz

Sorry Dutch, I can't help you with that. I never test my CF's at 50 yards as Tom a Hawk said, most groups would be one hole. I don't save a target because it's a good group, I only save targets that have value as a reference for testing at some point in the future. I will post an example later on.
I think this whole question (contest?) is more complicated than it first appears. The rifle that fired those groups had been resting in my gun safe for over 10 years. When I took it out thinking about hunting with it I found I could not get it sighted in. The wood had warped and the forearm was putting a lot of pressure on the barrel. So I bedded the rifle and reworked the trigger. Then I used a process I had preciously developed to handload precision cartridges and all shots fired were with this process.
I keep some of these targets because I can get a direct visual comparison of the effects of various things like seating depth, powder grains etc. So I think it highly unlikely what my rifles will group at 100 yards is a direct comparison to what most shooters will get out of their rifles.
FWIW all my rifles have loads that will group repeatably in the .500" range. If they can't be made to do so they are replaced. As for the flintlocks I expect them to shoot one hole groups at 50 yards if I do my part. Over the years I have fired enough shots to learn how to wring the most out of my rifles.
These days I hunt with a flintlock at least 95% of my hunting trips. I find I have a need to keep checking my prime. I haven't shot a CF group in years as I don't need to do so. But I still do a lot of testing with the flintlocks because there are always variables yet to be tried.
Here is an example of my CF testing targets,

This is what I expect my flintlocks to be capable of shooting though I can't always see well enough to accomplish it,

 

[Dr5x]

Sorry Dutch, I can't help you with that. I never test my CF's at 50 yards as Tom a Hawk said, most groups would be one hole. I don't save a target because it's a good group, I only save targets that have value as a reference for testing at some point in the future. I will post an example later on.
I think this whole question (contest?) is more complicated than it first appears. The rifle that fired those groups had been resting in my gun safe for over 10 years. When I took it out thinking about hunting with it I found I could not get it sighted in. The wood had warped and the forearm was putting a lot of pressure on the barrel. So I bedded the rifle and reworked the trigger. Then I used a process I had preciously developed to handload precision cartridges and all shots fired were with this process.
I keep some of these targets because I can get a direct visual comparison of the effects of various things like seating depth, powder grains etc. So I think it highly unlikely what my rifles will group at 100 yards is a direct comparison to what most shooters will get out of their rifles.
FWIW all my rifles have loads that will group repeatably in the .500" range. If they can't be made to do so they are replaced. As for the flintlocks I expect them to shoot one hole groups at 50 yards if I do my part. Over the years I have fired enough shots to learn how to wring the most out of my rifles.
These days I hunt with a flintlock at least 95% of my hunting trips. I find I have a need to keep checking my prime. I haven't shot a CF group in years as I don't need to do so. But I still do a lot of testing with the flintlocks because there are always variables yet to be tried.
Here is an example of my CF testing targets,

This is what I expect my flintlocks to be capable of shooting though I can't always see well enough to accomplish it,

I GUESS THE WORLD HAS PASSED ME BY WHILE I WAS CONCENTRATING ON GROWING OLD AND ESSENTIALY BLIND,
THERE WAS NO MIDDLE EASTERN WAR BACK THEN.
SINCE THAT TIME THE ARMES INDUSTRY HAS DEVOTED ITSELF TO DEVELOPING RIFLES THAT WILL NAIL Mustapha Ben Kid'n ..AT 800 OR MORE YARDS.
In my rather fixed concept of time people were still going deer hunting with their Dads old 1955 style rifle.
I believe I will cancel yearly American Idea of a contest and try to think of some other competition.
Dutch Schoultz

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Hey Dutch...,

You realize that the guys, such as my son, shooting them super tight groups at 50 yards in a modern rifle launching a .224 diameter, 62-grain spitzer boat-tail hollow point, are firing from special rests and using telescopic optics, right?

How about the modern rifle using open iron sights from the bench, with only a sandbag on top of the rest, upon which to place the modern rifle, and have the test use that arrangement vs. the ML doing the same thing. ???

It's been my observation that the only real advantages of modern, fixed ammunition was all weather capability, longer distances, and much less cleaning..... especially when putting meat on the table.

I mean it's "cool" to essentially put the projectiles all into the same quarter at 100 yards, but the deer don't know the difference between an X and a 9 at that distance

LD

 

[sawyer04]

Who is the better shot?

Usually the person with one gun, they know how to use it.

 

[Marinekayak]

Dutch
The attached targets are more inline with what your looking for. One is an iron sighted national match m1a. It is 100 yds but it is iron sight the other is a .50 traditions mountain rifle at 50. The lower three shot group is after i adjusted the sights.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Usually we don't condone discussion of modern firearms here - but this is going peaceably so let's indulge.

At 50 yards I don't think I favor one over the other (m/l vs. center-fire; though with the current state of my peepers a nice 4x scope would benefit my shooting. And I don't scope muzzleloaders.

My bowhunting mentor, using a 1960's style recurve bow (no sights) and cedar arrows, could out shoot some .22 LR shooters out to 30 yards. And he put it to good use on squirrels and rabbits. Still or moving. He had astonishing eyesight, much better than 20/20, and he was a former state archery champion. I could out shoot him with a .22 LR pistol at 25 yards when he was using a .22 LR rifle. He just didn't practice with firearms much. He was always focused on the target and not the sights. When he had open heart surgery they split his chest and he couldn't draw a bow for some time, so he got out the 'ol .22 and was trying to improve with that.

We came up with a solution for him - a peep rear sight and a hooded front with an insert that was a ring with an open center. Suddenly he as shooting tiny groups with his .22LR

To echo what Sawyer04 said - a shooter who is familiar with his rifle and has practiced properly should do fine at 50 yards. Know how to use it.

 

[brewer12345]

Hey Dutch...,

You realize that the guys, such as my son, shooting them super tight groups at 50 yards in a modern rifle launching a .224 diameter, 62-grain spitzer boat-tail hollow point, are firing from special rests and using telescopic optics, right?

How about the modern rifle using open iron sights from the bench, with only a sandbag on top of the rest, upon which to place the modern rifle, and have the test use that arrangement vs. the ML doing the same thing. ???

It's been my observation that the only real advantages of modern, fixed ammunition was all weather capability, longer distances, and much less cleaning..... especially when putting meat on the table.

I mean it's "cool" to essentially put the projectiles all into the same quarter at 100 yards, but the deer don't know the difference between an X and a 9 at that distance

LD

I think that the practical accuracy between modern and muzzleloader is much closer if we take scopes, etc. off the table. I shoot a lever action with a tang peep and I would say that without a scope it is not more meaningfully accurate at 50 yards than my muzzleloaders. Could just be due to my eyes, of course. Put a scope on a modern rifle and if it is of decent quality and has the right load it will generally outshoot a ML. The major manufacturers churn out modern rifles like this in a variety of calibers for under $400 street price.

As I said before, at the distance most deer are shot, it makes no difference. Last two deer for me were 80 yards with a cast bullet in a modern rifle and 50 yards with a .530 round ball. Both does expired almost immediately after the shot and both were tasty.

 

[ResearchPress]

Ok, here’s a comparison of two targets of mine. Each are 13 shots in 30 minutes with best 10 to count for score. Bullet has to be 50% or more over the line to count for higher score. I don’t hunt, just punch holes in paper. Shooting was at 100 metres. Targets are metric, with rings at 25mm spacing, so approx. 1 inch. X-ring is 25mm dia; 10 ring is 50mm; 9 ring is 100mm (approx. 4 inch) diameter. Each target was fired on the same range, but different dates. Each fired with lead bullets weighing approx. 560 grains, and Swiss No. 4 (1.5Fg) powder.

Original Enfield Short Rifle dated 1866 fired prone with open sights and military two point sling for support. .577 Minie bullet. 80 grains charge. Score 92. The high shot was fired part way through the course of fire and ‘called’ as a bad shot. March 2018.

- - - - -

Browning repro. 1885 High Wall fired prone with aperture sights and wrist rest for support (back of hand on rest, rifle forearm in palm). 45-70, grease groove bullet. 70 grains charge. Score 100. The high shot was called, the other two outside the 10 ring I thought OK, but likely pilot error. The group is 10 shots. October 2019. (Mud was splashed on target when I carried it back to firing point).

David

 

[Erwan]

I think that the practical accuracy between modern and muzzleloader is much closer if we take scopes

I think so...

This is a training (prone position) shoot of the last year, I took a picture because it was not so ridiculous at 100m (109 yards) with one of my twoo Tryon Pedersoli. 4 gram french BP #1 (60grains FFg), no scope but tang sight (vernier Pedersoli 430) and tunnel front sight the bullets were 500 grains squeezable bullets...
13 bullets in 30minutes (MLAIC rules)...
I may be can do better with a modern rifle and a scope but I'm an old man with no rifle firing metal cartridges: only ML ...
May be with a Sharps 45-70 and a big scope I'll can do better but not sure...

Spoiler

 

[ppg1949]

Good vision is the key to accurate shooting. I complained to my optometrist that I could not see my front sight on my ml long gun. He had me bring in the rifle. He took many measurements with me aiming the rifle. He had an optical lense made that attached to my glasses. The problem was solved. But I only shoot paper now.

 

[Baxter]

I just finished reading an article in a popular "gun stuff" monthly magazine about the author's use of a scoped, newer CF 6.5mm Magnum cartridge/bullet, using a new "monometal" bullet design and who got his elk bull "at less than 70 yds" from among a herd and from wooded cover.
I believe that either of my .54 cal. RB (one percussion, the other FL) rifles could do the same, if I could get so close.
I am more impressed with the fact that the author managed to get so close to a herd of elk, from which to choose his bull than with the new 6.5mm "magnum" cartridge/bullet, but he did not detail his stalk.

 

[Erwan]

Good vision is the key to accurate shooting. I complained to my optometrist that I could not see my front sight on my ml long gun. He had me bring in the rifle. He took many measurements with me aiming the rifle. He had an optical lense made that attached to my glasses. The problem was solved. But I only shoot paper now.

I'm only a target killer with very tired eyes (I was clockmaker my whole life) and if I don't have a rear aperture sight I can't see the front sight too I did try a lot of lenses but no one was perfect...
When I'm shooting open sight like with Hawken or Pennsylvania rifle I don't see the front sight, so few month ago a friend of mine gives a Lyman Eyepal and now I can shoot open sight and see the front sight really clear: for me it is better than a new lens and I have a perfect perspective...
I can't know if this gizmo is good for everybody but you can try to do something like that with only self-adhesive with a small hole of 0,050" or a bit more...
But that is only good for target shooting, I doubt it's great for hunting.