How good were they anyway?

[Doc]

I've got to ask ....... All those stories about snipers during the Revolutionary War that were supposedly so deadly at some gosh-awful distances with some very primitive muzzleloaders ....... Are those stories just a lot of nonsense, or are they true or is the truth somewhere in between. I was watching a program on the history channel one time a few years back and they made a big deal about the accuracy of a bunch of Green Mountain Boys sitting in trees and knocking off redcoats at some phenomenal distances. I wish I could remember the distances they were claiming, but the program was quite a while ago. I'm just curious as to whether some of that stuff is even possible, or were the authors of that program stretching the truth just a bit. How far would you expect that a sniper using old-timey muzzleloaders could really reliably shoot a British soldier?

That kind of goes along with the stories of some of the pioneers "barking" squirrels, meaning shooting close enough to the squirrel on a limb or trunk of a tree to kill it with bark from the bullet impact but not destroying the meat with a direct hit. This was supposedly a common way to hunt squirrels. That sounds like some pretty tricky shooting with what had to be some very primitive muzzleloaders, but again one has to wonder if maybe it was just a lot of legend passed down and amplified a bit over time.

Personally, I've never messed with the things so I don't really know. Maybe you guys that mess around with the capabilities of primitive versions of muzzleloaders have some educated opinion about how much actual truth is in some of those myths (or facts). Just how good were those guys? Just how good would it have been possible for them to be, given the real limitations of the weapons?

Doc

[bpb]

I saw that show. Think it was 200 to 400 yards.

What people today consider primitive was top of the line back in the day. Also many folks only owned 1 or 2 firearms. You've heard the sayting, "beware the man who shoots one gun".

But as a refrence here is some international news. Theses were no doubt what we it the know call slug guns--a typical bullet design, but lead.

The 7th Long-Range World Championships were held 24-27 September at Camp Butner, North Carolina, USA.  Shooters from seven nations competed at distances between 300 and 1,000 yards, turning in performances worthy of the best modern target rifles.

  But these were not modern high-velocity rifles, but the percussion target rifles of the 19th century, when long-range shooting was in its infancy.  Typically between .40 and .50 caliber, weighing around fifteen pounds, these rifles represented the apogee of mid-1800s firearm technology. 

 

  American competitors excelled in the original-arms division of the matches.  Firing 150-year-old antiques, Karl Kuehn took gold in the 1,000-yard match and silver in the 900-yard match, carrying him to triumph in the overall long-range aggregate and earning a bronze medal in the grand aggregate.  Nor was Kuehn the only medalist.  Al Roberts won the original division of the 600-yard match, while Mon Yee took bronze at 300 and 500 yards - scores which would earn him bronze in the mid-range aggregate as well.  Meanwhile, Dave Munch and Rick Weber took bronze medals in the reproduction and original divisions of the 1,000-yard event. 

  The Long-Range Muzzle-Loading World Championship was held under the auspices of the Muzzle-Loading Associations International Committee (MLAIC), the world governing body for competition with black powder firearms.  The 8th World Long-Range Championship will be held in 2011, at the famed Bisley range in Great Britain. 

[Doc]

So they were not shooting just a regular round patched ball as we usually define primitive muzzleloader bullets? Because I have heard people describe legally defined primitive muzzleloaders as being pretty much a short-range weapon as guns go (like out to 100 yards max). That's why I was having trouble correlating what I saw on that program with what I am hearing those say that actually shoot these things today. Like I say, I have never messed around with them, so I am totally uneducated in terms of their real limits.

Doc

[bpb]

Doc, I shoot at 100 yards w/ round ball all the time & can print on a good day-offhand w/ iron sights 6" or so group. Using a 45 cal reproduction Vincent style rifle. With 72 gr of Goex 3f the ball is going appx 2,200fps

During the Rev war their was a group of guys know as the "widow & orphant makers". 150 yard head shots were not uncommen. 

Run over to the Alabama hunt club during a shoot and watch.

[Doc]

That's some darn good shooting. That's not the accuracy that I understood the primitive versions of muzzleloaders were capable of. That's getting pretty close to shotgun accuracy. In fact, given iron sights and shooting off-hand, I probably couldn't do as well at 100 yards ...... but then I never was worth a darn shooting off-hand.....lol.

Doc

[bubba]

in the day when I could see the sites better, I have competed in 200 yard maches with my t/c hawken sidelock, 80 grains of ffg goex blackpowder, 490 diameter 178 grain round balls, .015 patches and a tang mounted peep site.  My best was a 3 inch group at 200 yards off a bench, and i lost the match.  Most people today do not take the time to actually work up the optimal load for a muzzleloader.  In the days of past with the snipers, as stated above, that was their go to firearm, so they made it very accurate. Besides it isnt the accuracy that is the problem as much as energy and velocity. Sure I can shoot my muzzleloader accurately at 200 yards, but will it have the energy to cleanly kill at that distance umm not in my opinion.  That is why most limit distance to reasonable limits. Today for the majority, at most, a muzzleloader is a tool to use during a primitive season.  I have watched muzzleloading evolve over the years and it has done so with some very clever marketing with phrases deadly accurate out to 250 yards. Accurate yes deadly no.  There are documented 1000 yard shots that would out do any centerfire that was ever made.  But as with a centerfire, you dont pull it out of the safe and start shooting at those distances.  As with any firearm it takes a lot of patience and practice.  The majority if the sniper shits in those days were not instant kill shots.  I am willing the most who were shot at that distance succumb to infection and death, but it took them out of the game.  Bit it was an effective tool for the time. 

[Doc]

But, I would think that if you can come up with a load that can pull off "1000 yard shots that would out do any centerfire that was ever made", it seems that such a load and even a lot less potent loads would still have plenty of knock-down power at 200 to 400 yards to instantly turn the lights out on a british soldier, wouldn't it?

Again, I really have no knowledge of these weapons and that is why I am asking. I see these shows on Discovery Channel or National Geograpics channel or the History Channel, and they always leave me wondering how much is actual fact, and how much is folk-lore passed off as fact. I figured the guys who actually use these things would have a pretty good idea whether this particular show was embellishing the facts a bit or not.

Doc

[bubba]

when you are shooting a round ball, you are depending on it opening up and basically flattening out to do damage. At slower speeds they just pass through and not do the damage it would at higher velocities.  A good patched ball doing its job should be pretty flat if recovered. I have a couple that look like a quarter that I have recovered against an opposite shoulder.  Black powder is an explosive, which does not allow for the velocities and energy that smokeless powder will.  At 200 yards and above, just remember it does not take much to punch a hole in paper. With my previousy stated load, I may get 1100 to 1200 fps at the muzzle. It drops quickly from there do to the resistance to a round ball. 

[bpb]

FYI: velocity is velocity, be it a round ball or a 30-06 2,000 fps is still 2,000 fps. Once it leaves the barrel The bullets spin and balistic coefincency play a bigger part in down range tjectory.

    [table]    [tr]  [td][/td][td][/td][/tr][/table]

This link has some good information on muzzle energy

http://www.pyramydair.com/site/articles/formulas/

Utube video of Friendship Indiana.

[Doc]

That was an interesting video! It all looks like a fun time although I'm sure some of those guys take it a whole lot more serious that just a "fun time".

Doc

[sweet old bill]

Doc I think they sure would know there equiptment real weel when it had to keep you in food and or not have your scalp in some teepee...

[fasteddie]

That is quite an interesting video . It's dying out as no new blood is joining .

[erussell]

wouldn't mind getting into it but a good handmade weapon that shoots well can run you a few Grand.

[Doc]

wouldn't mind getting into it but a good handmade weapon that shoots well can run you a few Grand.

I'll bet they wouldn't kick you out if you showed up with a replica.

I really do like the idea of historic re-enactment. There's an awful lot of history that we can simulate and experience in that way even in these modern ages. What's really interesting is the extent that these guys go to to learn the details of life back in the pioneer days. Each one of them develops into a historian in one fashion or another, and takes the time to learn and understand about our own heritage and culture for a change.

[fasteddie]

Some of the folks that live near East Avon should stop by the DEC Sportsman's Show in September . They usually have a camp of the Flintlock group on site dressed in the 1700's style of living .