How accurate are the original Buffalo rifles and schuetzen rifles?

[ResearchPress]

From my reading, the original 1000 yard target was a 3 foot square, three points, in a six foot panel; two points in the six foot center panel if one missed the bull; with two three foot wings for one point.
Yet, the famous first Creedmoor target of the best Irish shooter....who I believe was the first to put all 15 shots into the bull, was round. Not square; no lucky corners. It could well be the English and the Irish were still using the square target back home. The very fine Irish Rigby rifled musket was beaten the US team with Remingtons.
The shooting was done laying down, and there were 4 or so different styles. The Irish I believe started that style.

For Creedmoor, targets were imported from England and were as used by the NRA(GB). That used at 800-1000 yards was 6ft high by 12ft wide, with a 3ft square bulls-eye in a 6ft square centre, and 3ft side panels as you note, but scoring was 4, 3 and 2. These were the targets used in the 1874 US v Ireland match at Creedmoor.

In 1875 the NRA in Great Britain adopted circular targets and these were the targets then adopted at Creedmoor and used in the 1876 Centennial Match. The target was again 6ft high by 12ft wide. Bull scoring 5 was a 36in circle inside the centre, a 54in circle scoring 4. The 6ft x 6ft inner scored 3, and the remained of the target, the outer, scored 2.

During the 1876 Centennial Match, J.K.Milner of Ireland made the unprecedented score of 75 x 75 at 1000 yards.

No artificial support was permitted during shooting (slings or rests) and US shooters did much to popularise the back position which was found to be more stable than prone.

David

[Gunlaker]

Things would likely be different if artificial support and heavy rifles with light triggers were allowed too. I remember Orville posting on the Shiloh board of a group shot in the old days by Mr. Tollofson ( using the rifle that Orville now owns ). I believe the target had ten shots in something like 15 inches which is an amazing feat if you've ever tried shooting these rifles in any sort of wind.

Chris.

[M-Tecs]

1879 Sandy Hook Tests

http://home.earthlink.net/~sharpssht...SandyHook.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/843705/posts

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...pdoor-Accuracy

http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/45...ts-1879-a.html

[Chev. William]

I believe they are/were Electromechanical computers as they use Selsyns and Amplidynes for transmitting positioning data to and from the turrets and Range finders. Later Radar ranging and pointing were added, but the manual inputs are still there for 'just in case' use if the electrics go out.

Chev. William ETC USN Retired.

Felix, Gabby even the WWII battleships had mechanical computers to sight the guns. No electrons involved. These are incredibly complex assemblies housed in - I'm guessing here - boxes easily 8'x8'x6' or larger. Perhaps even stranger, when these ships were being updated in the '90's they could not find an electronic computer that would do the job better, the original mechanical computers were left in place and used.

[ResearchPress]

1879 Sandy Hook Tests

I have several histories of long range rifle fire on my web site, also including Sandy Hook.

See: http://www.researchpress.co.uk/index.php/longrange

David

[Lowpower]

I'll make a few assumptions.........in 1870s shooters were much better at estimating range then now (without a rangefinder), they shot more and were in better practise, their BP was better then ours today, they shot/practised more off-hand shooting or from sticks, whereas we tend to shoot from a bench more, they shot well because there were many more animals to shoot at and there were no licenses required......whether any of this makes any diff. on which generation was a better shot, I don't know. I like to think that shooters of yesterday were better then we are because it was more important to them, their lives may have depended on it.

You text makes me wonder exactly how much real practice most of those old folks really got. Everything I've ever read about the western cowboys and hunters was the definite lack of large quantities of ammo so every single shot counted. A miss meant money left on the table and not in their pocket. It would also seem that one shot from close range would scatter the herd but may have been a lesson well learned. I would think the distances most Buff's were taken was a direct result of how close they could get without spooking the herd but going no further so they could keep they're odd's of one shot, one kill high without waste of a bullet.

I'm still working up a load for my .45-100 1859 Sharps, re-barreled around 1877 or so and just as soon as my shoulder gets back from the chiropractor I will continue until I can reliably shoot it to our clubs max range of 600 yds.

[montana_charlie]

and just as soon as my shoulder gets back from the chiropractor I will continue until I can reliably shoot it to our clubs max range of 600 yds.

That's what I hate most about using an out-of-state chiropractor.
The shipping fees for sending a shoulder back and forth several times a year can really cut into the supply of mad money.

[country gent]

In those days hunting was a buisness from Buffalo hunting to meat market hunting for military bases and towns to ranches. The best of equipment was probably used and more important only the best crews were able to continue working. Beginneers were almost an apprentice working up thru the diffrent tasks. A hard life lots of hard work and discomfort.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It is an axiom that short-range accuracy is achieved by the rifle, and not getting any worse at long range is achieved by the bullet. The use of large lead bullets at long range undoubtedly produces substantial problems of trajectory, but black powder is an easily and consistently ignited propellant, and I don't believe barrels are better made than the best of the 19th century production. Even inaccuracy of bore dimensions (which were far from always the case) weren't fatal to accuracy when the bore was consistent along its length, or tightened up towards the muzzle. When the mould and other tools were tailored to the bore, excellent accuracy was still obtained.

I am a long way from my books at the moment, and I don't quite come of the pre-carbide age, but I can remember when it was truly exceptional for a hunting rifle to deliver 1 moa accuracy. I am pretty sure the reason was in the bullets rather than the rifle. In the 1930s it was still being written that nobody was making rifles more accurate than those of Henry M. Pope.

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com...arry-pope.html

Pope guaranteed his rifles to give an accuracy within two inches at two hundred yards. 5/8in. was not unknown, and the scheutzen discipline, with hand-rest forends and sunfish butts to rest on the chest, permitted shooters to come closer to that than we expect of offhand shooting today. But this depended on the use of the Pope false muzzle. The charged case was inserted at the breech after rammind down a bullet which the false muzzle perfectly aligned. This had the twin advantages of sweeping out fouling, and preventing finning at the rear ends of the lands. Users of this system often recharged a single cartridge case, and even those who preferred to load from the breech, including at an earlier date, often did, and pushed the bullet into the lead first. If you want to make bullet pull consistent, what could be better than making it consistently zero?

At longer range, I don't see why there should be anything impossible in the fictionalized account Charles Winthrop Taylor gives in "My Rifles", of which the full text is available online in "Our Rifles". He describes and illustrates the rifle he imagines being used, which was probably in his own collection. It begins on Page 90:

https://archive.org/details/firearmsinameric00sawyrich

In the story a Civil War general is shot with menace aforethought with a single shot, at a range of one mile, one hundred and eighty-seven feet. But this takes the use of a very rare early benchrest rifle, a theodolite and baseline to determine the distance, testing on a range, and a high powered telescopic sight which surely wouldn't seem anywhere near as good now as it did then.

But the results achievable with more conventional rifles could be remarkably good. Queen Victoria put a bullet within five inches of the centre of a 400 yard target, to inaugurate target shooting at Wimbledon in 1860. That was with a rifle mounted the previous day on a tripod from which a heavy weight was suspended, and she only had to pull gently on a silken cord. The British NRA still has the rifle and target, and it is a very conventional hexagonal-bore Whitworth of moderate barrel weight.

[Lead pot]

I have several old original rifles and I still have two trapdoors that shoot just as well as my reproduction blk powder rifles.
I see shooters shooting some very-very good hits on the targets out to 1000 yards. A lot of those targets look better then the targets that are recorded from the eighteen hundreds Creedmoor matches.
I don't think the powder used back then is any different then the powder used now days. I was given some old red can Curtis's & Harvey's
from a powder can collector that I shot and the fouling and accuracy was no different then the Dupont I was using back then.
One thing you have to take in consideration with the Harry Pope records and advertisements with the Pope/Stevens barreled rifles. Most of that shooting was made with the .25, .28, .32 and .33 calibers that are a lot easier to get fine accuracy with.
One thing that I think makes a difference in accuracy and that is the metal the barrel is made off. Back then they mostly used wrought iron. A lot softer iron that has a lower vibration then the Steel used for barrels now. I think that is why the SST barrels show a slight edge in accuracy.
The rifling also where in most part shallower grooves and slower twist making a big difference in fouling.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Wrought iron was usual for most of the muzzle-loading period, but it is soft, and a rather grainy material. Kentucky rifles were quite often rebored and rerifled. By Pope's time, in quality rifles, the use of steel was pretty well universal. It was softer than modern barrel steels, more subject to erosion if the use of high pressure smokeless loads had been attempted, but was probably easier to cut rifle with a really smooth finish to the grooves.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I own an early Shiloh, Long Range Express in 45-90. It has a paper patch throat, which lets me seat the bullet about 1/8th of an inch deep, and actually get 90gr of powder in the case.

Good conditions, you standing out at 1000yds. I get two shots, and the second will hit you nearly every time.

Rich

[GhostHawk]

There is a reason the Buffalo nearly went extinct!

Those old guns may have slow moving bullets with rainbow trajectory's but the people who love them know those rainbow's well.
And if it hits, it won't need any follow up shot.

[John Boy]

And if you use the same reload, the results will be ...

Those old guns may have slow moving bullets with rainbow trajectory's but the people who love them know those rainbow's well.
And if it hits, it won't need any follow up shot.

[CanoeRoller]

Historically, it was not that rare for long range shots to be accurate. Billy Dixon's 1500 yard shot, while impressive, was a flock shot.

There was a event in Montana, where a fellow armed with a scoped Sharps hit a Sioux warrior at around 1300 yards after some simple eyeball calculations ( I am forgetting the fellow's name unfortunately)

Also in Montana, Sharpshooter ridge on the Little Big Horn, is about 500 yards from Reno hill. The unknown native marksman was able to hit a number of troopers, who were hunkered down under some cover, presenting rather small targets.

That Sharpshooter was stopped by return fire from Sargent Ryan (with a scoped Sharps 45-70) and Captain French (with a 50-70 trap door infantry model), who, if they failed to hit the fellow on the ridge, were able to get close enough to scare him off for the rest of the battle.

There are many other instances of long range sniping from about that period.

I believe the murder that lead to Tom Horn's demise was a 4-500 yard shot, though that is about 20 years later.

There is also the story of General Sedgwick in the Civil War, who, when viewing confederate snipers about 600 yards away, is quoted as saying, "They could not hit an elephant at this dis..."

[Don McDowell]

When the Miller boy killed Willie Nickel and Tom Horn got hung for it , the shot was about 100 yds and done with a 30-30.. nothing particularly complicated..