Muzzleloaders then and now

[Stoney Dee]

When I was young enough to endure the physical demands many moons ago (mid 1980s) I tried using a Hawken style rifle made by TCR to do some wild turkey hunting. It worked fairly well for me out to about a hundred yards, that's the range I practiced at. Would ACW period muzzleloaders have been accurate and effective at that range or perhaps longer?

 

[johan_steele]

When I was young enough to endure the physical demands many moons ago (mid 1980s) I tried using a Hawken style rifle made by TCR to do some wild turkey hunting. It worked fairly well for me out to about a hundred yards, that's the range I practiced at. Would ACW period muzzleloaders have been accurate and effective at that range or perhaps longer?

For a man who could shoot a man sized target at 400 yards was not an issue with the right weapon.

It depends on which arm. A Sharps rifle will greatly outperform an M1842 musket because it's rifled and a breech loader.

 

[Old Soldier]

When I was young enough to endure the physical demands many moons ago (mid 1980s) I tried using a Hawken style rifle made by TCR to do some wild turkey hunting. It worked fairly well for me out to about a hundred yards, that's the range I practiced at. Would ACW period muzzleloaders have been accurate and effective at that range or perhaps longer?

That is the big debate on another thread. The rifle muskets were quite accurate out to about 500 yards, but much depended on the rifleman's expertice and the powder charge in the supplied ammunition. The sharpshooters' rifles, most with scopes, were accurate to beyond 1000 yards. Certainly the British NRA civilian competitions, based on current British military practice, were to 400, 600, 800 and 1,000 yards - with iron sights. These were not military issue rifles but civilian rifles made to the same pattern (P1853), however, you can bet the winners at 800 and 1,000 were using specially made target rifles to that same pattern, not the usual 'military standard' ones.

 

[ResearchPress]

. . . Certainly the British NRA civilian competitions, based on current British military practice, were to 400, 600, 800 and 1,000 yards - with iron sights. These were not military issue rifles but civilian rifles made to the same pattern (P1853), however, you can bet the winners at 800 and 1,000 were using specially made target rifles to that same pattern, not the usual 'military standard' ones.

The NRA(UK) matches of the muzzle loading era for Rifle Volunteers were for the most part fired with the Pattern 1853 Rifle Musket (the three-band Enfield) of bonâ fide Government pattern, carrying .577 ammunition. Competitions were fired at 200, 500 and 600 yards with the Enfield - beyond 600 the Enfield was not considered accurate enough for target shooting. So, for the Queen's Prize 2nd Stage fired at 800, 900 and 1000 yards small-bore (.451) rifles were issued - with one exception, when a Rigby rifle was used, it was the Whitworth rifle. The rifles had open sights.

There were also matches open to All-Comers with 'Any Rifle.' Such rifles evolved from variations of the military pattern to specialised items not suitable for military use. They were generally around .45 bore and used in competition out to 1000 yards. The open military sights were replaced by aperture sights (telescope sights not being permitted).

The British 'Regulations for Musketry Instruction of the Army' (1864) included three classes of target, the number of points to be achieved to progress into higher classes adjusted for .577 bore rifles or Whitworth rifle - 3rd class for 100-300 yards, 2nd for 400-600 yards, and 1st for 650-800 yards (or if the Whitworth was used 650-900 yards).

David

 

[Old Soldier]

The aim of the NRA was to promote marksmanship in the Volunteer movement so that they could complement the regular forces, if necessary. The original specification for the rifle was the civillian versions of the P1853 firing the .577 round. They never expected ALL the volunteers to be elegible for the annual competitions, just the very best. Equally, since the volunteers supplied their own rifles, the best shots got the best rifles, either bought by those who could afford them, or as gifts from those who could. As time when on, these shoots became more of a club outing and the distant shots went for the Whitworth and other smaller bore rifles.

The regular army did not use anything but P53 & the various clones in their training and competitions. The single exception was the P1855 Sappers and Miners Carbine with a Lancaster oval bore - at .577. The regular army always considered the individual shoot to be no more than 500 yards at most, but more usually 400. Lifting the backsight usually meant a company shoot - an 'area target'.

 

[ResearchPress]

The original specification for the rifle was the civillian versions of the P1853 firing the .577 round. . . . . Equally, since the volunteers supplied their own rifles, the best shots got the best rifles, either bought by those who could afford them, or as gifts from those who could.

The original specification was covered by a Circular of May 1859, and did not specify P.1853.

"With a view to supply of ammunition from the Government stores for the use of Volunteers, it is a primary and indispensable condition of their formation that the rifles with which they are armed should be perfectly uniform in gauge with those on use by the Regular Army, and that they should be a similar uniformity in the size of nipple, in order to suit the Government percussion cap."​

Some selected the Short Rifle, and the Government did not object to Volunteer Rifle Corps arming themselves with breech-loaders for ball-practice. In the latter case they were still expected to acquaint themselves with the Enfield in case of the active services of the Volunteer Force being required.

The Volunteers were only initially expected to supply their own arms. By July 1859 a Government Circular confirmed that they would supply 25% of a Rifle Corps effective volunteers with an Enfield rifle. This was increased by an additional 25% in October and from 1 January 1860 a further 50%, raising the aggregate issue to 100% of the effective strength of the force. It wasn't until July 1860 that the NRA(UK) held their first annual rifle meeting. The 1861 Regulations for the Volunteer Force superseded the earlier Circulars, and Clause 102 stated - "Every Volunteer Corps is supplied gratuitously with Arms from the Government Stores, to the full number of its Enrolled Members, if required." Private purchase arms were permitted, and for NRA(UK) competition had to be of bonâ fide Government pattern, carrying .577 bore ammunition.

David

 

[poorjack]

Any discussion about "accuracy" is meaningless without some framework to gauge it. There are two methods that are most common- Figure of Merit and Minute of Angle. They are different. When looking at ordnance dept tests of the era, pay close attention to what they used as a target and what they defined as acceptable.

 

[Old Soldier]

The usual method for small arms at the time was the ability to hit a target at a certain distance. The 'figure of merit' was the mean (average) radius from the centre of the group, done on a 5'x4' target, typically at 500 yards for an infantry rifle. Modern 'grouping' uses a diameter around the group. The FoM would need to be multiplied by 3 to get what we would call a grouping. Example - in the 1857 trials, a Whitworh gave a FoM of .37 feet (4.4") which would be equivalent to a group of 13.5". Minute of angle was the spread of shot expressed as an angle (VERY artillery) in this case 3 minutes of angle - 3/60s of a degree.

 

[DixieRifles]

Any discussion about "accuracy" is meaningless without some framework to gauge it. There are two methods that are most common- Figure of Merit and Minute of Angle. They are different. When looking at ordnance dept tests of the era, pay close attention to what they used as a target and what they defined as acceptable.

THAT was just what I was going to ask. What size targets did they use?? You see military ranges using those very large targets that are larger than a man---almost the size of 3 men.

 

[ResearchPress]

Any discussion about "accuracy" is meaningless without some framework to gauge it. There are two methods that are most common- Figure of Merit and Minute of Angle. They are different. When looking at ordnance dept tests of the era, pay close attention to what they used as a target and what they defined as acceptable.

Figure of Merit (FoM) seems to be misunderstood by many - you'll find 19thC results for assessing precision of arms and providing figure of merit, being parroted today as group size. The Whitworth rifle trials results are widely miss-quoted leading to some wildly unrealistic claims today of its accuracy. I have information on line explaining determination of FoM in the UK, together with an image of a 19thC sheet for recording the shooting results. Group size can't be determined today from FoM results, but an indication of the likely overall size of the group can be estimated. I've used my own shooting results with muzzle loading rifle at distances out to 1000 yards to calculate FoM and work out an average relationship to the actual group size - it's statistical analysis and any relationship varies depending on the pattern of the group. See the following, which also includes further discussion of the 1857 Whitworth rifle trials results - Measuring Accuracy.

David

 

[DixieRifles]

it's statistical analysis

Brrrrr

I felt a chill run up my back.

 

[Old Soldier]

And this was all done with the rifle in a rest. No human variations to tarnish the results. Here is a diagram showing the comparison tests for the Whitworth and Martini-Henry in 1880 to illustrate the facts presented:

*Edited to remove image from a website. Copyright concern.*

 

[ResearchPress]

Here is a diagram showing the comparison tests for the Whitworth and Martini-Henry in 1880 to illustrate the facts presented:

Yes, that image is lifted from my web site and the article that I wrote on Measuring Accuracy and linked to in my previous post.

David

 

[Old Soldier]

Sorry about that - it was an image search.

 

[poorjack]

Figure of Merit (FoM) seems to be misunderstood by many - you'll find 19thC results for assessing precision of arms and providing figure of merit, being parroted today as group size. The Whitworth rifle trials results are widely miss-quoted leading to some wildly unrealistic claims today of its accuracy. I have information on line explaining determination of FoM in the UK, together with an image of a 19thC sheet for recording the shooting results. Group size can't be determined today from FoM results, but an indication of the likely overall size of the group can be estimated. I've used my own shooting results with muzzle loading rifle at distances out to 1000 yards to calculate FoM and work out an average relationship to the actual group size - it's statistical analysis and any relationship varies depending on the pattern of the group. See the following, which also includes further discussion of the 1857 Whitworth rifle trials results - Measuring Accuracy.

David

Thanks for the reply about FOM. Many on this side of the pond don't have a clue as to what it is. In discussing accuracy, having some means of determining AND measuring what accurate is is 100% necessary to having a meaningful conversation. I've often spoke with other shooters who say "my gun is accurate, I can hit a deer" or "my gun is accurate, I can hit a 12in gong at 50yd". In neither case are their comments relevant and that's crucial to having this type of conversation.

 

[johan_steele]

Maybe an NSSA shooter can chime in. I believe someone in the 90's redid the experiments from the 1856 small arms board. His result mirrored the original. He had even built the rig for the weapons test. Though IIRC he had to substitute one of the arms.

I did some quick net searching and came up blank. I'm trying to remember when I first heard about it… early 2000's or earlier?

 

[johan_steele]

As a note I was first introduced to black powder shooting with the ACWSA in the mid late 2000"s and enjoyed myself immensely. I miss it horribly.

I am still somewhat awed in the precision shooting I've seen some do. From the ACWSA to the Buffalo shoots in Montana. There is a reason I love the Sharps and Ballard rifle. I can at least vouch for the oft repeated statement that a man sized target is in real trouble at 400 yards if the shooter has any skill whatsoever.

 

[Old Soldier]

The original British NRA targets of 1860 were 6 feet square with a 2 foot diameter circle in the centre. Distances were 200, 500, 600, 800, 900 and 1,000 yards. No rests or slings were allowed.

British soldiers were trained to hit a target 6 feet by 2 feet with a 2 feet diameter bull's eye. The target used from 650 yards to 900 yards had a 3 feet bull's eye, with any man scoring 7 points with 20 rounds at that range being designated a marksman; hitting the target was worth a point, hitting the bull's eye two points. Once again, no slings or rests were allowed and most practices were either standing or kneeling.