New rifle for long range paper patch shooting

[Lincoln Creek]

I was wanting a new rifle just for long range paper patch shooting(500 to 1500 yards). I know I will get several different response but would like to hear them all in order to weigh all my viable options and hope the discussion doesn't turn into an all out brawl between competitive shooters. If you had unlimited funds, time and was ordering a new rifle for this, what exactly would you order? Please be explicit and in depth with your selection and why.

[country gent]

45-70 is the universal do everything caliber but a 45-90 may be better if the recoil isnt an issue. 44-90 is becoming popular with some also. Riifle style Sharps, High Wall, or Rolling Block are about three most popular types. C Sharos also has a reproduction of the remington Hepburn, CPA makes some very fine rifles also. Handle as many diffrent make and models as you can and see what fits you and you like. One Plus to SHiloh, C Sharps, and CPA is they offer alot of options and choices. You can pretty much get what ever you want or need. Invest in the best sights you can afford. WOrk with the rifle and learn it inside and out. I would consider a SHarps in one form or another in 45-90 ( moulds and cases are easier to find) use a bullet in the 535-550 grn range loaded over black powder to around 1200 fps-1300 fps. Look at the diffrent web pages for these makers above and see what they offer. Keep in mind From these there is a wait period as the rifles are built to order. Pedersoli has some that may be very usefull also and are off the shelf.

[Don McDowell]

As I already have several rifles that work fine, I'll take this a different direction.
If I was in your position of wanting/needing a rifle for shooting to 1000 yds, I would take a real serious look at a couple of rifles that C Sharps has on their instock list. There's a couple of hiwalls, one with a 45 barrel and another with a 44. I'ld request them to chamber either one to use the 2.4 inch case. The 45-90 may have the edge as far as bullet availability, but their 44-90 rem straight chamber is a reproduction of the chamber used back in the heyday of the Creedmoor shooting. Either one has the history behind it for doing what you're wanting to do.
Yes I have rifles in both chambers.

[country gent]

I have yet to work with the 44 2.4 so wasnt sure. I have worked with 45-70, 45-90, and 40-65 mostly and a little 38-55. The 40-65 and 38-55 may be wanting at 1000+ yards. I have had very good results with 45-90 and heavier bullets in the 500-550 grn weight range out to 500yds. My rifle is a C Sharps arms Hepburn in 45-90, 34" tapered octagon barrel, set triggers. Rifle wieght with sights is right at 12 lbs. Several little things to do first learn to cast very good bullets, the better the bullets the better off you are. Test several powders manufacturer and granulation Swiss and Old Ensford seem to be most popular on the lines. (Keepin mind with these 2.3" cartridges there arnt 100 rounds in a pound of powder). Get solid zeros for the ranges you have available to you even 100 or 200 yds gives you a place to work from. A good ballistics program known velocity and bc for the bullet your using will get you very close for come ups at longer ranges. Dont just shoot from a bench but from positions used also. If sitting from sticks or prone from sticks shoot rifle in that manner. Some rifles perform diffrently from position than the bench. This also helps you reffine what your doing.

[Gunlaker]

With unlimited funds I'd build two rifles. A Tollofson style Sharps in .45-110 and follow the advice of Kenny W ( I love the heavy barreled Sharps ), and then I'd build a rifle like Brent Danielson's. Two different approaches that seem to work.Chris.

[M-Tecs]

I am in the process of doing the same thing. I am going with an original Winchester Hi-Wall with a 34" Krieger 1 in 16 stainless steel barrel.

[Lincoln Creek]

If I go with a CPA in 45-90, is there any special chamber instructions to give them for shooting paper patched 45-90?

[country gent]

Paul and Gail are great to deal with. Fine rifles well built and craftsmanship shows. Talk to them and chances are tey will know just what you want and need. I have a shillouette model in 40-65 that is a great shooter and the wood is just simply beautiful.

[smokeywolf]

Chill Wills is another one who should chime in on this subject.

[BrentD]

Lincoln,
Having been in your shoes, and being a dedicated paper patch shooter with no interest in groove bullets, I set out do exactly what you are talking about. I had already been down the road with a .45-100 and then a .45-90. Both are too big in my opinion for a dedicated long range rifle with paper patches. I on't need that much powder and trying to load them down is self defeating. So, I put all of my money on .45-70 and I built two rifles. One for silhouette and the added duty of standing in as a back up for long range and one for long range and added duty to stand by as back up for silhouette. Both have won at their respective games and both have also won in their role as back up so I'm pretty pleased with the way it turned out.

Chambered correctly, the .45-70 will hold about 80-85 grs of Swiss 1.5 with minimal compression and a 0.06" fiber or poly wad. That is plenty.

The long range is a 16-twist. I think there is a significant edge to 16 twist and I would not build a long range gun with anything else but. And it can only be a .45. Lots of arguments are made for lesser calibers, but they have yet to prove themselves in my eyes.

I would, if possible, look for rifling that minimized obturation of the bullet. Pope rifling is one of those, but there are others. This is not super critical and neither of my cartridge rifles have it, but my long range muzzleloader does, and I think it makes a difference, though small and not something I could prove easily.

The chamber should be built to handle only bore diameter paper patched bullets. And after that, I differ significantly from others that champion "paper patched chambers" around the internet. Those are fine for hunting rifles, but not optimal for long range rifles. I think I have pretty good evidence to support this in the form of matches won and placed. Not many PPB shooters are winning much of anything with those chambers, but those shooting with a more conventionally shaped chamber, albeit way too skinny to chamber a groove bullet, have been regularly winning or placing in the top 5 or 10 at major matches. Meanwhile, those that champion these "paper patch chambers" the loudest have not done well at all with them in competition.

Both the rifling and the chambering are designed around the principle of minimal obturation is best. Narrower grooves/wider lands would also be in keeping with that principle, but I suspect that this could be overdone (e.g., Marlin microgrooves).

Last, I would build it on a highwall, flat-spring action because it is simple, easy to field repair if it breaks down at the range, has a decent trigger, lots of available parts, cocks on closing. It can easily be speed locked as well, and that has some advantages.

It would be custom stocked to nudge right up against the BPCR silhouette rules so that it can be a legal back up there with the very high comb (reverse slope to it). Not over 12 lbs and probably under it by as much as 1/2-3/4 lbs. It's length of pull would be about 15" in my case.

It would look a whole lot like the rifle at the top of this photo. but without the wide double set triggers. It would use either plain trigger or a single set with the standard S-loop lever.

So, there you have it, that is what I would do if I were in your shoes.

Brent


http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Winchesters%202.jpg

[Don McDowell]

If I go with a CPA in 45-90, is there any special chamber instructions to give them for shooting paper patched 45-90?

No their 45-90 reamer is designed with paper patch in mind. It will handle greasers as well. I would have them put the sillouette stock on it as their long range stock the comb is to high to be able to get down on the sight to be able to shoot much closer than 600 yds.

[Lead pot]

Don.
I just about had Gail put a .45 barrel on the rifle they are working on now, and I would have if their reamer was tighter then .482" at the neck diameter. If PTG would have got my reamer done as promised It would have been the .45-90.
Nice rifles Brent.

[Don McDowell]

It's a tight slip fit to put a .446 diameter bullet wrapped in 8 lb seth cole in an unsized fired case. Gail said their reamer was designed to shoot patched bullets, and it does work rather well, but leaves the option to go with a greaser.

[Lead pot]

I have their reamer print. The neck tapers from .484" to .481" in .345" with a 4 degree transition and the throat is .2574" long.
That is a little looser then what I wanted.

[Don McDowell]

It work fine for patched. this was at 800 yds, used up most of the test rounds I had loaded, the ground was wet and we couldn't see the bullet strikes, but finally figured out it took 15 minutes less elevation just to get on target compared to the grease groove setting. Load 82 grs of OE 1.5 in JBA cases, Napa rubber fiber wad, and the dry lubed felt waf. BACO .446, 525 gr money bullet cast from 20-1. I have a batch cast up from 16-1 to try when ever the weather will cooperate. Did shoot a very few of the KAL .444 tgb bullets at Alliance, and they definetly show some potential.
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f358/Ranch137/003_zps9dh5e4fh.jpg

[BrentD]

This is what a properly designed, paper-patch-only, .45-70 chamber can do for you at 900 yds.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Matches/2015%20Lodi%20BPTR%20regional%2098-2x.jpg

[kokomokid]

Brent, I have a couple questions. Does your chamber go from case neck step down directly to bore diameter with the leade angle on the lands? If so , what is the leade angle per side?
Also curious as to what op wad you use in the muzzleloader?

[Gunlaker]

Brent that is an excellent target!

Chris.

[Chill Wills]

That is a smoking 900y. That is as good as it gets.
So I have had the same question about chamber geometry - what you call funnel chambers and "some peoples" PP chambers.

If you have prints or numbers I would like to understand better. That is an honest question, not a loaded question. :grin:

[BrentD]

Michael it does get a little better than that. Someone, I forget who, has a 99-2x listed as the national record. Sadly, my last shot was a 9. Oh well. I had a perfect run at a 100 at 800 yds the last time I as at Raton when I called a shot out at 3 o'clock. It was an 8 at exactly at 3. I ended up with a 98-4x. At the time a 10 would have tied me for the national record. Now the record is something absurd as I recall, but I don't know the details. That was in the pre-Prolate days though.

As for the chamber, I have been assured many times by the authorities of the internet that I could never hit diddly with these chambers, but here it is.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jessie/PPB/Highwall%2045-70/xHighwall%2045-70%20reamer%20small.gif

[kokomokid]

Thanks Brent and congrats on the shooting at Lodi.

[Chill Wills]

OK. so I got a handle on your reamer and chamber. Q. What is your Starline case neck thickness? The .458" to .450" 3 degree taper makes sense but paired with the 0.475" neck diameter has me going. If (as an example) brass is 0.010" the chamber neck (in the brass mouth area) is 0.455".
If the brass neck is 0.011" the inside will be 0.053"
If - 0.012" the inside will be 0.051"
Needing room to release and assuming a 0.450" patched bullet we are at 0.012" brass case walls?

Now, can you contrast that chamber with what you call a typical or Funnel PP chamber as I likely have some variation of one of those I am working with now.

I have to say sorry twice;
one) this is a lot of your time and a later reply is fine.
two) if you do not want to get into this at all that is OK. This level of detail is asking a lot by me.

[shooter93]

Ok Brent and whoever else.....could those dimension be "scaled down" for a 44 caliber? While I know the 45-70 is probably the easiest way I have a Steve Earle Wesson action that I think I'll do in the 44-100 Wesson caliber simply because it was one of his calibers. I may do it as sort of a do all rifle and I no longer have any desire to compete so it's just for me. Have you ever used smokeless powders with such a chamber? Just curious how it worked. It's been many years since I've shot blackpowder cartridge.

[Lead pot]

I have chambers like Brent's for the .45-2.4 and scaled down for a couple .44's and they shoot great. But I do see things that made me change my alloy and wad stack.
What I see when the chamber is tight where the case mouth cant expand enough where the inside of the case mouth is a smaller diameter then the groove is deep, I see a hard bullet will not fully expand the bullet base inside the case mouth and I see some, not all, recovered bullets that have cuts like a mouse has been nibbling at the base and some cuts extended all the way up to the ogive.
And this gets worse if the bullet is seated more than 3/16" in the case. The land cuts are there but the bullet did not fill the groove.

Kurt

[Lead pot]

Here is one of my .44's for the .438"/.446" bore groove. it is almost too tight. for seating a PP bullet in a fired case unsized .002" over bore diameter.
http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/44-75Ballard_zpscc6f6aac.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/44-75Ballard_zpscc6f6aac.jpg.html)

[BrentD]

Thanks Brent and congrats on the shooting at Lodi.
Thanks but that is really great spotting by Bob Wood and superb target pulling by Mike Metzel. Bob saw a condition, I thought I saw it but several times he called me off when it looked good to me. Down in the pits Mike recognized right away from the tempo of shooting that we had a condition that we were trying to run so he had the targets up every time I brought the rifle back up. We finished with something like 10 minutes or more on the clock that time. Mike and Bob are incredibly good guys to shoot with.

My best shooting was done on the previous day when we sat on a condition too long and weren't watching the clock. Suddenly, I had a dirty barrel, 3 more rocks on the rack waiting their turn to fly and only 1:26 on the clock. Somehow I got all three on paper, though the last one was in the air when time was called. For me, that is stellar. Lead Pot can tell you that speed is NOT my strength. I don't recall what the score was. It was not very good score but that there were no misses, no rocks left unthrown, that was a bid deal for me in that match and I was pleased that I pulled it off given where I was at the 1:26 mark.

[BrentD]

This level of detail is asking a lot by me.
No problem at all. But I've taken a lot of grief over every step of getting to where I am.

As for the thickness of the brass, I don't know. I will measure some shortly but I don't have any here in the shop. Your concern about release space is a good one, and Al was concerned enough with it that we added a couple thousandths to the neck diameter before ordering the reamer. Your question makes me wonder if the dimensions on the drawing are the first iteration or the revised one. I'm going to have to do some checking and pull the reamer out and check some more.

Bob Wood built a rifle with my chamber and he experimented with some slightly oversized bullets (.453s as I recall). They were to tough to chamber but worse, they pulled a mile of brass down the bore before the cases snapped in half. He only fired a few before he realized it wasn't working. There is not a lot of tolerance for variation in bullet diameter with a chamber like this. My bullets are .450+ or maybe .451-. I don't claim any superhuman abilities to measure in "tenths".

In so far as the brass goes, I simply bought Starline and shot it without any trimming, annealing, or neck turning. I shot it that way for 3 yrs and then finally had some grow enough that I could see they were climbing the end of the chamber, after three full seasons and countless practice and load testing sessions, I finally trimmed them slightly and annealed them. Everyone claims that Starline absolutely must be annealed. I do not find that to be true. I have not yet annealed them a second time.

The problem with the funnel chamber is that the bullet will bump up to fill that entire funnel and the it must be swaged back down to climb up the funnel into the bore and grooves. All that squishing and squeezing doesn't bode well for accuracy. It makes a fine hunting chamber in my Ballard Pacific where I have fouling to contend with. So, it gives a modicum of accuracy but nothing like a proper target chamber (which would simply suck at hunting if a fouled bore was any possibility at all). The key to accuracy (even with the groove bullets) is to minimize bullet distortion and the funnel chamber does not do that at all.

[BrentD]

Ok Brent and whoever else.....could those dimension be "scaled down" for a 44 caliber? While I know the 45-70 is probably the easiest way I have a Steve Earle Wesson action that I think I'll do in the 44-100 Wesson caliber simply because it was one of his calibers. I may do it as sort of a do all rifle and I no longer have any desire to compete so it's just for me. Have you ever used smokeless powders with such a chamber? Just curious how it worked. It's been many years since I've shot blackpowder cartridge.

Absolutely no reason not to try a .44. But a .44-100 would be one mean witch to tame. These rifles need very, very little bullet in the case. The less the better. I like less than 0.10". To do with paper patches means that your bullet has to be supported by the powder charge and the wad. So, you need a hell of a lot more powder to do that than you need just to get the bullet to the target in good order. I'm no scholar of the .44s but I would go for the shortest one I could find.

I have not attempted smokeless. I think it would be a disaster for these reasons - 1. You have nothing to support the bullet as described above. 2. Smokeless is not going to bump up the bullet like black and that will result in gas cutting through the patch in the lands and then leading your barrel like hot-solder and torch. If I was absolutely determined to try it with smokeless, I would try something really fast like Unique and I would use a super soft bullet (soft is not good for accuracy due to nose slump).

[BrentD]

Lincoln, is any of this helpful to you? What are your thoughts about what you want to do?

Do you have any ideas of who you might have build it (yourself?)? I'm curious as to what your thoughts are and where you are starting from.

[BrentD]

Michael,
I measured several pieces of brass and they are 0.010 to 0.0105, maybe 0.011 depending on how snug I push on the calipers. Not sure how well I measure but that's what I get. Then I measured my reamer out on the end of the chamber. With both a micrometer and a calipers, I get 0.475". Measuring the reamer is really hard to do since the cutting edges are releve on the back side making the diameter tough to find. But what I repeatedly didn't get was any number bigger than .475 when I gently rotated the reamer in the jaws. So, I think the drawing measurements are right.

[Lead pot]

Brent I have to say that I don't see any evidence of a bullet getting deformed with the funnel throat. I have looked at enough that filled a 5 gallon bucket full and now a second 1/4 full.


http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/IMG_0223-5.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/IMG_0223-5.jpg.html)


But what I have seen is what I mentioned in the above post with the alloy to hard and the tight chamber you and I use.
At first this made me scratch my head when I found some like this. This was the worst one out of the bunch.
I looked at almost 600 this winter since we had a lot of snow to get away with the uncut bullet bases till I found the right combination.

Kurt

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b302/940Leadpot/IMG_0336.jpg (http://s22.photobucket.com/user/940Leadpot/media/IMG_0336.jpg.html)

[BrentD]

Kurt, you may not see it in those bullets but you aren't looking for grossly obvious deformaties because bullets fired from a funnel chamber are not grossly inaccurate. Without some way to measure spin balance and concentricity (is that a word?) with super high accuracy, we can't really know. If those bullets are perfectly balanced and straight.

But we do know that bullets bump up in the case, so we know that they will fill that funnel. And then we know they will be swaged back down going forward. Doing that exactly the same every time is unlikely, but they will be close to the same and, thus, there will be some semblance of accuracy, but probably not the level of precision that we really want. So, you end up with a 2-3 MOA rifle instead of a 1-2 MOA rifle. Actually, I don't find a funnel chamber to shoot better 3 MOA and usually closer to 4 MOA if I'm strictly honest with myself and shooting 10+ shots per group at a descent distance.

While the big advantage of shooting bore diameter bullets is axial alignment, it is not the only advantage - if done optimally. It is also the best way to start the bullet smoothly an uniformly down the barrel. When we think of all the effort that folks go to annealing the brass and striving to maintain precise neck tension on their groove-diameter bullets, it is clear that launching the bullet with uniformity is critical. Often zero neck tension with no crimp is best, and certainly that would be the most consistent way to start a bullet.

With bore diameter bullets, we can also have very consistent release of the bullet from the brass. Even more so than what the best groove diameter bullets can produce. However, to the extent that we bump them up in the throat and then squeeze them back down, we defeat this advantage. All this metal moving and reshaping is going to take much more force and thereby much more variability than overcoming any neck tension or crimp could ever produce. Thus, I have been of the notion that the throat should be as minimal as possible.

Ultimately, the goal of launching a target bullet from a target rifle should mimic a muzzleloader as much as possible. This has been my goal ever since I read Robert's "Muzzleloading Caplock Rifles" and then compared what I read to the photos of cartridges in James Grant's first book "Single-Shot Rifles." That was the first time it dawned on me that bore diameter bullets were the ticket, and that mimicking muzzleloaders was the key. No one was shooting bore diameter at that time (early 1990s) - at least not anyone on the internet. Everyone was absolutely convinced that bullets had to be groove+ to be accurate, so I only made progress very very slowly and it took me a long time to figure out there was more to this than just the bullet. Especially since I only had to travel out of state to get access to ranges beyond 200 yds, and then only for matches. Until 2008, I only shot schuetzen and that just didn't give me the data I needed. When I started shooting Creedmoor, I learned things much faster, but I only got to shoot those distances during matches, and that is a hell of a slow way to develop a whole technology more or less from scratch.

Anyway, that is a nutshell is the philosophy behind paper patching with bore diameter bullets - mimic the muzzleloader. The results of the Irish and English as Wimbleton tell us that they are the ultimate in precision riflery with blackpowder and lead.

[Lead pot]

Well I will stick with the funnel chambers and the bottle necked and straight .44's I have seen these results many times. Yes this is only 200 yards but it is less then a MOA with 7 shots???? maybe 10 with one sight change. I don't remember to say for sure anymore. But the long tapered throat's will shoot and shoot quite well. This target was shot using the .44-90bn with a chamber reamer made from an original long tapered throat 1877 long range rifle.

When you get right down to it, we all have our preferences and there is not just one good way to make things work.

http://i704.photobucket.com/albums/ww43/Kurtalt/83ed5235-1fa0-4f9a-ab32-eca4a1b3d0de_zps6irlvbjw.jpg (http://s704.photobucket.com/user/Kurtalt/media/83ed5235-1fa0-4f9a-ab32-eca4a1b3d0de_zps6irlvbjw.jpg.html)

[Gunlaker]

Brent thanks for sharing your thoughts on this stuff.

The idea of minimal deformation makes plenty of sense. I think the ultimate in deformation reduction comes from breech seating ahead of the throat which works quite well at schuetzen distance.

The funnel chambers in my, and Michael's rifle, is quite minimal at least. The length of the funnel is just under 0.017" long ( 25 degrees from outside of case at 0.474" to .458" groove ).

There is one problem with this relatively steep angle I've found. If a cartridge is chambered and the bullet enters at a slight angle it can tear the front of the patch, or roll it up like a sock on the bullet. This seems a little more likely on my .45-90 than the .45-70 for whatever reason.

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

Chris do you have a drawing of that reamer? As you know I also have one of those reamers, and am waiting for Oregon Barrels to get a barrel made with a 16 twist and the contour to match this Browing bpcr. Then will take the whole pile of stuff to Eron Ahmer and let him work his magic with it.

[Lead pot]

I see a lot of damage to bullets with the 45 degree chamber end transition then the long tapers. I have records where the bullets actually ended up longer then before it was fired using soft bullets.
This is getting a little off topic so I will drop this. Maybe I will start a new thread on this at some point between the now standard and the vintage throats. When you really look at undamaged recovered bullets and take close measurements and dispel speculations what you might think it tells you a different story.

Kurt

[Lead pot]

I think what might make an interesting breach seating chamber is one that has a straight 90 degree chamber end with a sharp 5 degree or steeper lead so there is no gap between the case and bullet base and breach seat a groove diameter bullet.
Or have a groove diameter free bore long enough that matches your bullet.

[BrentD]

Kurt, you know the latter was often cursed as the "Wolfgang" chamber.

[Lead pot]

:lol: ya I know, but how many tried the groove diameter bullet breach seated in that chamber? ;-)

[BrentD]

At least one. I rebarreled within 6 months of buying the rifle. :(

[Lead pot]

When Pedersoli copied Wolf's rifle they also put that chamber in it LOL. I had one when the Ped. Quigley rifle first showed up :)

[Gunlaker]

Chris do you have a drawing of that reamer? As you know I also have one of those reamers, and am waiting for Oregon Barrels to get a barrel made with a 16 twist and the contour to match this Browing bpcr. Then will take the whole pile of stuff to Eron Ahmer and let him work his magic with it.

Yessir I do. I've been meaning to put the prints that I have of Dan's reamers and bullets onto my web site. I have a bunch of them and now that Dan isn't here to share them himself I think it'd be useful thing to do.

I'll post a link to the .45-70 and .45-90 prints in a few minutes.

Chris.

[Gunlaker]

Don, here they are:

http://www.bcsingleshot.com/DansStuff/DanT-45-70-PP.pdf

http://www.bcsingleshot.com/DansStuff/DanT-45-90-PP.jpg

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

Thanks Chris

[Lincoln Creek]

Brent,
Yes, it is helpful. I appreciate all the info. I've been loading and shooting BPCR for about 12 years. In those years I have had a Pedrosoli rolling block, a Uberti Hiwall, an original Hiwall, and had a CPA 44 1/2 made for me. All of these was in 45-70 except for the original Hiwall and it was rebarreled with a Badger 40-65. The rolling block shot great, the Uberti shot terrible, mostly because of the trigger pull and curved butt. The CPA was a piece of art. It shot well and was by far my most memorable rifle, probably because I custom ordered it to my liking. I had to sell it when work slowed down about 6 years ago. I'm self employed. I did shoot it for 2 years and broke even. My original Hiwall was one of those "in the right place at the right time" deals. It had original sights, original wood, and was a silhouette model. I gave $900 for it. I never fired a shot thru it. Someone offered me $2,000 for it and it went out the door. I kept all my reloading stuff and about 2 years ago I purchased a Browning BPCR in 45-70. I had Lee Shaver rework the trigger. It shoots about anything I can put through the it really well. I've been playing with it a lot this year. I have an office 5 minutes from my house in NW Missouri out in the boondocks and have a range there also that I can shoot up to 400 yards. I also just had Lee put a new octagon Green Mountain 30" barrel with #4 Winchester profile onto a Pedrosoli Silhouette model 1874 Sharps. It weighs 12 pounds. It is 45-70 also and has a pretty tight chamber. I have not fired a shot in it. I'm saving it for my sons first BPCR.
I really thought the paper patch shooting would have been great to get into 12 years ago but back then a lot of people were discouraging it, but now it has a pretty big following compared to what it was. I love the Hiwall action. I will probably look more into the CPA in 45-90 for paper patched shooting or have Lee put me together a Hiwall this winter. I have only shot in 1 regular silhouette match with other competitors. I didn't do well and it was my fault. I knew nothing about the sight settings to start with because I had only been practicing at 200 yards and 400 yards. Someone there helped me some on that. I new nothing about what front sight insert to use. I also didn't realize it was a timed event for each bank of targets. I had never used a blow tube until that day. I had never fired prone before that day. My 45-70 load was with 70 grains of Swiss 1.5 and no recoil pad on shoulder or gun. I fired 59 shots that morning, after shot 25, my collar bone was done. I actually thought it was broke on the drive home. In that shoot my first bank was the Turkeys. I got 4 Then I got 4 pigs. By this time my shoulder doesn't want any more abuse. I got 2 rams, then my time ran out. They let me shoot the rest but just not for score. I got 2 more. Chickens was last. I hit none and at this point I was exhausted and in pain. My adrenaline was flowing way too much and I was nervous, it being my first match. It also didn't help that I was the odd numbered man there so I always shot last with the whole group standing behind me watching. I'm not complaining because I had a blast. I learned a lot from that shoot and most of the guys there were very nice and helped me a bunch. Since then I have been practicing here at home and will attend the next match in June and every month after. I don't want to win the matches or my class, every time I shoot I just want to do better than my last performance when I shot. I've been competing against myself for the last several years, but I was doing it incorrectly if I want to shoot the silhouette matches. I just love loading and shooting theses guns. My goal is to continue to shoot several silhouette matches every year and in a couple years attend a couple of the long range matches ant shoot paper patched bullets. You will probably never see my name in the winners circle, I just want to load and shoot to the best of my capabilities.
Thank you guys for all your help, and if you were in the military or are currently in the military, I want to thank you for your service. Me and my household are in your debt.

[BrentD]

Hey Lincoln, that's a great story - and two things. That Browning .45-70 probably has about the best factory chamber out there for paper patches. You should definitely give it a try. A friend with one shot some very nice groups with his using a paper patched bullet. So, you can dive right in with what you have at hand if you want.

Also, what are you doing next weekend? There is a 2-day regional match at the St. Louis Benchrest Club outside of Wright City. Not too terribly far for you. Load whatever you have and come on down and shoot. It is a very laid back match and we would love to see you.

Brent

[Lincoln Creek]

I have played a bit with some pp in th Browning. Still learning. I currently purchase all my bullets from suppliers and am completely out for a couple more weeks(I hope). With any luck I will be casting my own bullets this winter, depending on how this years business goes. I currently try to attend one event a month, at this point any more than that and I'd be divorced. If they would build shooting ranges next to a Kohls, Target, Walmart, and a Nebraska Furnatur Mart, memberships at those ranges would increase dramatically. The plus with my range at my office, well, it's self evident. I put in a lot of office hours.

[BrentD]

Yes, I can see where an office range could get a whole lotta use... :)

[SgtDog0311]

In following Brent and Lead pot’s embedded discussion here about cylindrical freebore (with 45* step) vs a conical freebore that steps from the “full” neck diameter to the groove diameter, it seems like it would be an interesting exercise (if barrels and reamers cost a dollar) to see how a chamber that compromised between the two would perform.

I’m envisioning a 40 caliber chamber with a neck diameter of .431 for instance, that retains the 45* step down but to a more mildly conical free bore which, say, went from .411 to .408 (groove diameter). If you applied a 2* taper after the 45* step at the end of the case mouth, you’d get minimal expansion.

With a neck diameter of .431 and a case wall thickness at the neck of .010, a bumped-up bullet would leave the case at .411, exactly the beginning of the free bore diameter, then only be swaged .003 on its way to the rifled portion of the barrel. That swaging would occur over about .120 of conical free bore.

Could be the best (or worst) of both worlds. Still, interesting to imagine.

I suppose you’d still run the risk of lead rings, which are not always a given but do occur.

I’ve never seen a reamer diagram reflecting that design.

[BrentD]

John, my .40 cal reamer just hopped in the mails yesterday. It will be a fair bit skinnier, but the bore is .401/.408. But no free bore. I'm against them, personally.

What you describe sounds a bit like the Browning .45-90 highwall chamber (but not like the .45-70 from the same make and model)

[semtav]

I find this thread very fascinating. There are so many ways to make a very good shooting rifle. Brent has obviously found a system that produces very accurate rifles. So have others. I am of a slightly different mind in that I think almost any factory chamber can be made to shoot paperpatch bullets very well. Some may be very simple and some may take longer than most shooters care to experiment. When I started to think about paperpatching, a little over a year ago, most people were patching to bore dia. Being a thumb seated bullet shooter, I did not like how much one had to resize the cases to shoot paperpatched bullets this way in factory chambers. So I thought I'd be different and shoot to groove dia. Little did I know that was the way most shot only a few years ago and most had switched to bore dia. paper patching. I was fortunate in my quest to acquire a mould from Dan Theodore designed especially for Groove dia paper patching. After very little experimenting, I found it would shoot extremely well in my Miroku 1885 45-90 with the free bore ( which Dan said it would) but it would also shoot extremely well in my Shiloh 45-70. It would also shoot as well whether I shot black powder or Blackhorn 209. After shooting that bullet a while, I decided to try the same theory on my 42 wesson which I had never gotten to shoot with GG bullets because of severe leading problems. Not only were my leading problems cured, but the load proved very accurate right out of the gate with the first load I tried. The only problem I see with the Groove dia, is the need to seat the bullet farther in the case. this may contribute to slightly less accurate loads if Brents' theory is accurate. I plan to explore that more buy breach seating the bullets in a Browning 45-70 after some discussions with Bruce Moulds to see if I can maintain or improve on these loads.
Of the three guns I have been shooting this way, the 45-90 has been the most troublesome. I had never gotten it to perform consistently the way I thought is should. It wasn't until I set up my 1000 yard NRA target that I may have discovered why. I had only shot this rifle prone, and was unable to do that at my range because of the tall sagebrush. So I had to shoot it off cross Sticks while sitting. I had never noticed how horrible the trigger pull was on this rifle because I was masking it while shooting prone. I'm not that good of shooter sitting and need a hair trigger. Hopefully that will improve my scores with the 45-90.

To make a long story short. Take your 45-70 out and try different things with it, Breach seat, Groove, bore whatever. You may find you don't need much more than that to have a very accurate long range PP gun. then you can start figuring out different angles to explore with a new rifle.

[BrentD]

semtav, the only reason folks were shooting groove diameter bullets some years ago was because they were coming from grease groove and/or smokeless powder backgrounds and not paying attention to history or muzzleloaders. None of them shot worth a hoot either. While groove diameter bullets can be made to work, it is not easy and generally not as good simply because the patch is not going to take it as easily and w/o damage. People were pretty stubborn and refused to even try it back in the 90s and early 2000s, but eventually they had to cave to results. It just plain works.

While I do think there are a lot of chambers that can shoot paper patches pretty well, most are sort of like the average NFL quarterback, good enough to win a few but not enough to really be competitive enough to be a regular Superbowl contender.

In the end, whatever chamber you use, you want minimize bumping the bullet up and then having to swage it back down. Each time that happens, there is opportunity for the bullet to get just a little more off centered. Getting the bullet way up in the lands assures that it will be perfectly lined up before it bumps up, and it never has to be swaged back down. Thus, the bullet exits the barrel in the best shape possible (although breech seating MAY be the one exception, but it has other drawbacks).

[Gunlaker]

Brian, are your bullets patched to exactly groove diameter, or do you go a tiny bit bigger? I patch to bore, but have one rifle ( a really nice Borchardt, that has a long groove diameter freebore. I've been toying with trying groove diameter patched bullets in that one. It's a .45-90 and would not suffer in the case capacity dept, as my Baco Creedmoor GG bullets only sit in the case about 1/4" anyway:-)

Brent, your new .40 cal reamer sounds like a good idea. I think that a paper patched .40-65 could be the bees knees for midrange.

Chris.

[BrentD]

I would not use it for midrange prone, but maybe position, if I ever shoot that game. I will use it for silhouette though.

[Gunlaker]

I see. A little lighter recoil for improved offhand scores then?

Chris.

[BrentD]

Exactly. Otherwise, I'll take the .45 everytime. It is worth noting that I lack the courage to do a .38-50, but I swapped some emails with Mr. .38-50 (Rick Moritz) and he said, even he uses a .45 at midranges.

[SgtDog0311]

John, my .40 cal reamer just hopped in the mails yesterday. It will be a fair bit skinnier, but the bore is .401/.408. But no free bore. I'm against them, personally.

What you describe sounds a bit like the Browning .45-90 highwall chamber (but not like the .45-70 from the same make and model)

Brent, Thanks for pointing that out about the freebore. I know I looked at your diagram but somehow got it in my head you had freebore. Glad to know differently.

btw... should have said "I've never seen a Cast bullet chamber tapered like that". I have seen them tapering in that fashion with high velocity j-bullet chambers. Have not inspected drawings from the Browning .45-90.

[semtav]

Brian, are your bullets patched to exactly groove diameter, or do you go a tiny bit bigger?

Chris.

Chris. I hate to say, but I don't know right now. I went about everything wrong. I got the .454 mould first and then acquired a bunch of different paper. Since all my brass is fireformed and not resized I used the paper with the best fit for the brass. I wound up with one that was a snug fit, and one that smoothly went in to the brass. It was the second one that shot the best. So I'm pretty sure they aren't bigger than groove, but I'll measure a few and find out.

The OAL was just a fluke also. I cammed a round in the the chamber and found out it went in to the rifling about a 1/4 inch. After trying a few by chambering and then extracting I found what I needed to keep from tearing the paper. These were done on the Winchester 45-90 with a little freebore, so the shells did stick out of the case quite a ways.

I just used the same bullet/paper combo on the Shiloh also camming it in to the rifling about an 1/8 to1/4 inch. It may be as large or slightly larger than groove. again I don't even know cause it shot well. I did the same with the 42 wesson. just got a .424 mould used the same paper and patched the same way. Never measured anything. The target told the story. At the last Buffalo Rifle shoot I had several spotters turn and ask me what I was shooting because I kept hitting the same spot on the gong. So I know it is capable the few times I am.

Now I'm not arguing against Brents system being better. its just at this point I'm not as good of shooter or spotter as Brent and probably couldn't even make middle pack with his rifle. But I can take an off the shelf gun and win matches with it PPing if I do my part.

[Gunlaker]

Exactly. Otherwise, I'll take the .45 everytime. It is worth noting that I lack the courage to do a .38-50, but I swapped some emails with Mr. .38-50 (Rick Moritz) and he said, even he uses a .45 at midranges.

That's interesting. He was running the pits at Byers during one of the relays and, if I'm remembering right, told me he thought the .38-50 was a great silhouette cartridge but less good for midrange. I didn't ask him why. I have an original DST highwall in .38-50 RH but haven't shot it a lot. It's probably my most accurate short range rifle when using breech seated PP bullets though.

Chris.

[Gunlaker]

Thanks for the information Brian. I've got a long ways to go too. This is a very interesting sport, lots to learn. I think that there are lots of people with reasonably accurate rifles, and some with very accurate rifles, but mostly it comes down to the shooters ability to consistently put up good targets. Where I live there isn't much opportunuty to shoot in the wind. If I want wind then I have to travel. But, because there is little wind I can really tell if my hold, or my ammunition, is sub par. So holding and shot calling is something I really work on a lot.

Chris.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

it might be unwise to condemn groove diameter bullets too much.
the brits went down that path with great success, and shot dirty with accuracy at long range,
obviously such shooting requires a chamber to suit, and this would possibly include freebore.
patching to groove and breech seating might well suit some chambers with freebore.
some of the bullet would be engraved in the rifling and some would sit in the freebore.
lubing the patches with tallow and using a serious leverage seater could both help in this process.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Bruce, I don't think anyone is condemning anything, but I also think it is pretty misguided to say that the Brits (or anyone) has shot grease-groove, paper-patched bullets dirty with great accuracy. And certainly, no one is doing it today, Gert notwithstanding, and he is leading the list of contenders to do so.

Patching to groove will work of course. I killed my first couple of elk that way and the Europeans used groove-diameter, paper-patched bullets in cartridge rifles with some success (I wouldn't say great by any stretch of the imagination) as a military round, but that is a far cry from saying anyone can, or ever has, shot dirty with great accuracy in long range.

Today, if you want to be competitive, and I mean consistently in the top 5 or so, then you really need to wipe between shots. You may or may not want to shoot bore-diameter, paper patches, but no one is doing this with groove-diameter, paper patches. No one. There is always a chance that someone will someday but it hasn't happened, and not for want of trying. If it ever does happen, I am willing to wager, it will be done with a miracle blackpowder formulation that does no currently exist and probably never will.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

brent,
I choose to wipe and use bore diameter bullets as you suggest for the reasons you suggest.
however I cannot deny the plotsheet where George gibbs shot 50 consecutive shots into a 30" circle at 1000 yds using a gibbs/farquarson/metford rifle, shooting dirty.
the brits unquestionably mastered shooting dirty at long range, and I would like to know how they did it!
some of it might have been that the british climate is humid.
there also exist plotsheets of American shooters who shot better vert and worse windage than gibbs, but had a complete miss in the string.
possibly a dirt digger or a bad wind call?
for some reason most shooters go into denial when breech seating is mentioned, but reading suggests that this is how creedmoor shooting was done in its latter days.
possibly due to confusion with bison hunting techniques.
this technique has proven superior to fixed ammo when time constraints permit.
this with both 45 and 7 degree transitions.
current thinking is that the airgap avoids the transition entirely.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Bruce,
I can't agree with you on most of that. I don't know if the GFM rifle was a muzzleloader or a cartridge rifle, but either way, one or a few published groups says nothing about the norm and the average. The only time I know of where the brits "mastered" shooting dirty, was with muzzleloaders which, frankly, don't count since they are cleaned as they are loaded to a large extent (and when full cleaning was allowed, the American's generally beat them anyway). Meanwhile, a 30" group at 1000 yds is nice, no doubt but I've seen many such groups and even shot a few considerably better myself, but what is the norm and what is a "publishable/bragging sized group" is another thing.

Breech seating is fine. I haven't noticed an abundance of deniers about the topic, but I suppose there are some out there. It does have some minor advantages and someone could certainly seek to reinvent it for long range. I haven't seen anything about it "proven" per se, but then I have a bar for what constitutes "proof" when it comes to shooting and I don't see lots of topics clearing it. That goes both ways for breech seating though. No one has disproven it. Interestingly, a number of folks have tried and not succeeded with the method, perhaps giving up too easily. After all, I was told for years it was impossible to be competitive with paper patches. Kenny W. was one of the loudest in that camp. Oh how the times have changed.

In the end, for the experimenter, like Gert or he late DanT for instance, who like a challenge, then pursuing shooting dirty is certainly a worthy challenge for the sake of a challenge, and I'm all for that. But in the end, what do you end up with? I would wager the best that could be hoped for is something that is "as good as wiping". Actually, I don't think even that is attainable, but for argument's sake, I'll grant it, but it will never be better than a good clean bore.

[semtav]

Brian, are your bullets patched to exactly groove diameter, or do you go a tiny bit bigger?
Chris.

I measured a couple. My alloy for the black powder results in a 0.4590 dia patched bullet. My alloy for the BH209 gives me a 0.4592 dia.
I can't find my casting for the 45-90 yet, but I think it is 0.460 dia freebore and 0.459 groove. I've never cast the Shiloh 45-70 chamber.

[Gunlaker]

Thanks Brian.

Brent and Bruce, it seems to me that it would be difficult to have a more consistent bore than a clean, dry, one. I suppose that it wouldn't hurt to buy a little extra time by shooting dirty, but I don't think a lot will come out of it. Maybe with rifling that doesn't have tight corners like modern barrels do. Interestingly, a while back there were some old magazine reprints ( forest and stream ? ) in Lee Shaver's magazine and the topic was shooting dirty. One article had a fellow who claimed i worked well, and another article had a fellow who said it didn't work. I suspect that much of it has to do with each shooters definition of acceptable accuracy. This was a hundred years ago, but it sounds no different than the conversations of today. And they had the mythical "moist burning" powders. I'm not certain how that can happen.

I imagine that it would be more easily achieved in the UK though. The climate where I live is much like the UK in that the temperatures are mild and the humidity high. In summer on humid day, black powder residue will actually liquify after a few minutes as it pulls moisture from the air. I first noticed this when reloding a single case at the shooting bench. The residue from the fired case gets scraped into a paper cup and it's very interesting to see how it behaves on humid days vs. dry days.

Chris.

[BrentD]

You know, the humid/dry issue sounds really logical, but when I open the breech, what I see in the bore is mostly smoke, and thus gases produced by the powder, not air from outside the barrel. I find the fouling gets worse when the barrel gets hot - regardless of humidity. If I had the bore open for long periods between shots, or if there was a good breeze blowing when I open the chamber, maybe that would render humidity more relevant, but frankly, I think it is 90% about temperature, and when there is a lot of that, there generally aint much humidity, thus the apparent correlation.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

brent,
the gibbs/farquarson/metford was a breech loading falling block, using the farquarson action.
the brits banned wiping after a date not remembered, and this was part of the end of the great international matches.
50 consecutive shots is a fairly good statistical suggestion of potential.
of course that would not be average shooting, as wind control for is usually much harder.
by deniers, I mean that any mention of breech seating meets a stony silence. people are not interested in thinking about it.
there does however exist an interview with a major hinman who stated that it was most common in America at the end of the era.
people today have an unfounded fear that the airgap used to tune the load will ring a barrel, but it is only about 1/8" for 40 and 45 cals, and less for 38s.
breech seating has the same problem as pp shooting at the moment, namely a lack of statistics in its favour.
I am slowly pursuing shooting dirty, but keep coming up against the heat/humidity issue.
there is no question at the moment that as chris says, a clean dry barrel gives the best long range accuracy due to consistency achievable.
this is what I do for long range, in conjunction with pp bullets.
you mention dan t and Kenny w re experimenting with pp shooting, but you are up there as well.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Bruce, I think you missed a couple of my points, but good luck with shooting dirty or breech seating, etc.

[Don McDowell]

Bruce I think a lot of the reason we don't see much breech seating , is because it's just one of those "undiscovered" gems from the past (a few Schuetzen puritans the main exception). Look at how long the stuff about paper patch bullets had to be from pure or very soft lead has floated about, and is still "common knowledge", but yet we're starting to learn from a number of historical documents, hard lead ruled the day back in the day. In Perry's book there were a number of the shooters at that 1880 Creedmoor match that both breech seated and muzzleloaded their cartridge rifles.
Bodine made reference to shooting dirty in a letter he wrote to the Sharps Co.
Lot's of stuff folks can and do try, just the vast majority find it easier to shoot grease grooves. I do know a pretty good handful of the "top" shooters that have and do dally with patched, but to date have not found the accuracy they can get with grooved bullets, so unless someone is shooting a match for the fun of it, or for the historical bit of it, the shooter is going to take the load that works the best , and in the large majority that turns out to be a greaser.

[Gunlaker]

I imagine that the reason that breech seating is not more popular is time management. I suspect that in the original days of Creedmoor shooting that shooters had much more time between shots. Today you have a small, but sufficient amount of time in BPTR matches. Any time spent on loading/bore prep, etc is time that could perhaps be better spent waiting on a condition change. So it's tradeoff of accuracy vs. time. Would you want a 1/4 or 1/2 moa potential accuracy improvement, or an extra 60 seconds to watch the wind over a string of 10 shots plus sighters. I think that this is the jist of it.

I do really like shooting PP bullets though, even though thy cost me a bit in shooting time. I also like breech seating them in schuetzen rifles, but I don't know if I'd shoot a BPTR match that way or not.

In Farrow's book he mentions breech seating, and it's not 100% clear whether he was referring to all rifle shooting or just schuetzen as he shot all types of competition. He more or less said it had to do with chamber configuration as to whether the benefits were significant. That is another indication that it was used in the late 1800's for PP bullets as he was a big advocate of the patched bullet.

Chris.

[Don McDowell]

Good point on the time Chris.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

where I have 15 or 17 minutes for 10 to count plus 2 optional sighters (which are almost always needed) I shoot fixed pp ammo due to the time issue.
that said, breech seating is nowhere the issue that wiping is for using valuable time.
why pp and not gg bullets?
the pp have proven to have about 60% wind deflection of gg bullets, probably due to reduced drag.
this translates into higher scores.
long range shooting that continued at sea girt until 1912 maintained the use of pp bullets, possibly for the same reason.
we do not know whether the odg shot strings or went round robin shot for shot.
shooting against muzzle loaders would suggest that they might have gone round robin, as some of the breech loaders were also shot loaded from the muzzle at the creedmoor matches.
confusing the issue is the fact that the military was totally against shooting clean for obvious reasons.
most of the events shot on the creedmoor range were more military oriented and must not be confused with the long range matches. the gatling match for example.
after hyde's disastrous trip to Britain, and the political outcome of that, the military virtually took over the nra and that was the beginning of the end for the old ways.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Don McDowell]

The paper patch is more sensitive to fouling left in the bore, than a grease groove bullet that is likely .001 or more larger than the groove diameter. The lube grooves on a grease groove bullet soak up a lot of the ills the bullet might find on it's trip down the tube, while the patched bullet can only push the stuff off the base or slump the nose.

[Gunlaker]

I'm not sure how they shot the matches, but I think it could be determined by careful study of a few books. It is unfortunate that the old accounts were not more clear. Probably the best one I've read was in "Irish Riflemen in America".

I am sure that they had much more time that modern shooters. The author of "Irish Riflemen in America" noted that the Americans cleaned their bores with painstaking care. It would be difficult in todays matches to clean in that manner between shots. I think the best evidence though is when he writes of the Benett match held sometime after the main Match. It was 15 shots at each of 800, 900, and 1000. There was break after 800 yards for lunch. The Canadian team did not finish the match before dark and the match caried into a second day. I guess my countrymen are a bit slow :-)

Chris.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

chris
the americans made no secret of their wiping techniques.
they openly admitted to taking up to 5 rods to the range for different wiping tasks, in order to make the job more efficient.
some finished by wiping with an oily rag followed by a dry rag.
that is 2 rods, then one had a fisher brush making 3.
still 2 other rods for 2 different processes.
maybe the other teams were the slow ones, crowding the Canadians for time.
oh for a time machine!
keep safe,
bruce.

[Don McDowell]

I think they shot those matches something like we shoot gong matches. Each team had their target and each team member took his turn shooting the target. In one of the accounts there was mention of the Scottish team didn't fire a shot on the 1000 yd target until late in the day and it started raining. Then they got down to business and fired some excellent scores, as the weather conditions present were more to what they were used to at home.
It was definetly a pretty laid back affair compared to how we shoot today.

[EDG]

I an occaision to work on an original Remington-Hepburn in 40 - 2.5" Sharps Straight.
That about about 30 years ago when there was no brass except RWS 9.3X74R that was close.
The owner was not interested in paper patch bullets. He had a mold for grove diameter bullets but he could not get them to chamber due to the tight chamber neck. To get a loaded round to chamber he turned the necks to .003 thick (about like brass foil) but most of them collapsed when he tried to seat his bullets.

So he brought me the barrel and a long skinny boring bar and asked me if I could bore the chamber neck out.
I got the chamber dialed in dead nuts and made a pass to barely clean up the chamber neck. After checking it he wanted neck clearance with his bullets to be .005. I told him .003 might be a little more accurate if he was shooting smokless but he insisted on .005. I said ok and dialed it out .005 knowing it would not cut that large. The chamber wound up at .004 oversize. He decided to take the .004 and live with it.

The rifle shot well after the chamber neck was enlarged even though the bore was very crooked. Once the chamber and muzzle were dialed in I rotated the barrel at about 50 RPM and the bore flopped around like a jump rope.
But that chamber was definitely not the same as a groove diameter grease groove bullet chamber.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

don,
what you say ties in with the way the brits and I think the Canadians now shoot fullbore.
it is called "bisley style", where a number of shooters on the mound take it in turns to use the same target,, as opposed to each shooter shooting a string.
interestingly when it starts raining, the wind often drops, at least here in Australia..
edg,
what a sad thing to do to an original rifle.
many such rifles were ruined in the same way.
keep safe,
bruce.

[Gunlaker]

Don and Bruce I think you guys are right. I like the idea of taking turns, but it would sure slow the day down. For people that live in hot places I can also see the desire to get the matches done by the time the day reaches it's hottest. Mind you, sitting in my little trailer with no A/C isn't a whole lot better than sitting in the sun. Except that the fridge holds cold beer :-).

I wonder how windy it was back east for those matches. I'll bet it was a lot more calm than Wyoming :-).

Chris.

[BRUCE MOULDS]

chris,
it actually speeds things up, as the total shots fired can be done quicker, particularly if wiping etc is happening.
with smokeless fullbore, you have something like 45 seconds for your shot.
the same could happen with bpcr and say four to a target.
keep safe,
bruce.

[BrentD]

Personally, having shot that style several times now, I much dislike it. It greatly detracts from strategizing and puts you at the mercy of whomever you are paired with. Overall, it sucks as a means of having a good cartridge match.

[Don McDowell]

Chris , in Perry's book he stresses the importance of being at the coaches position, and listening carefully to the report from the previous shooter, and being able to call your shot and fully explain if you pulled the shot off so the next shooter wouldn't adjust his sights to your bad shot.
In the 1875 Remington catalog they give the windage adjustments for windspeeds up to 80 mph for their Vernier sights... Tells me the winds aren't always as calm back east as some would have us believe. Plus have you ever seen how many "wind farms" there are in Iowa???? :)

[BrentD]

Plus have you ever seen how many "wind farms" there are in Iowa???? :)

Everyday. Not that it really matters. Iowa ain't really "back east," however.

[Don McDowell]

It's all about perspective I suppose...:) the western Iowa border is 9 hours due east of here. LOL

[BrentD]

You drive slow. The West Coast is a hell of a lot further due West of you too. The East starts somewhere over in Woody's neck of the woods where they have this thing called "the eastern time zone"...

[Don McDowell]

Or some might say the "east" starts somewhere between Ogalla and North Platte where the mountain time zone ends... again, it's all in perspective..

[BrentD]

One might. But then one might say the West starts on the other side of the Rockies. Most folks seem to put the east somewhere east of the Mississippi River and the prairie states. But then some people consider the West Coast to be the East.

[Gunlaker]

I think that in the early days of American history that "the west" was a moving line that was anywhere west of modern civilization. I live on the west coast and always find it interesting how far east some people consider west to be :-). Maybe there should be a specific line of longitude assigned to it :-)

On our big road trip last month we did not make it to Iowa, but we did get very close as we drove through the southern part of Minnesota. I was actually most amazed by the wind farms in Texas.

Here in B.C. we have a mountain with a single wind turbine on it. It's mostly a tourist attraction believe it or not. I can imagine what most Americans think of it, given the huge numbers of these things I saw on our 31 day road trip :-).

I don't think I'd want to switch to a match format where I had a precise 45 second time slot to get my shot off to be honest. Thinking about it a bit, I'd rather have what we have now. The time management is an important part of the strategy I think.

Chris.

[BrentD]

I'm with you Chris wet the match format. Playing the clock AND the wind is what makes it all fun.

[Lead pot]

:) I live in Illinois just a stone throw east of the big muddy. I consider this being mid west :) 125 miles east of me is never ever land from there on. :)

[SgtDog0311]

Chris, Where did you make entry? I live (half the year) just South of where 95 comes down the Idaho Panhandle. You drop in that far "east" or come in above Seattle area? Border crossing sure ain't what it used to be. In that region you'd think we had 20 million illegal Canadians here and vise versa.

Lead Pot, that's how I feel about both coasts, they are both 'Left Coasts" east or west, and "never ever" turns into laa-laa land. Nothing to do with shooting of course, unless you are talking about the hostility towards guns in general there.

[Gunlaker]

John, I live really close to the border on the west coast so we started in Washington, then to Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indianna, Michigan, then up to vist family in Ontario and Quebec, then back down to New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Oregon, an back through Washignton and to B.C. :-)

[Gunlaker]

John, I just realized I didn't answer your question at all. We came down the I-5 North of Seattle and took the I-90 east through Coeur D'Alene. My wife and I really like that area. She often goes to Spokane Wa for craft shows. We've been to Sand Point which is a really nice place, and when I am there I can feel the magnetic attraction of Buffalo Arms :-)

Chris.

[SgtDog0311]

Wow Chris, sounds like you had a great trip. I've spent a week shooting in the Okanagon Valley between our Port of Entry and yours the last three summers. Buffalo Arms is 20 miles South of my cabin. I split time between Oklahoma and there. Spend most of the summer in the Panhandle. Bought my first five lbs of BP there this summer so we'll see where the new path takes me. You ever drive down 95 from BC be sure and give me notice. If I'm in the neighborhood I'll buy you a cup of coffee, and maybe help your wife drag you out of Buffalo Arms:-)

[Gunlaker]

Well it sounds like you picked a good place for your cabin :-). That is beautiful country. You also have the advantage of being within a days drive of some great black powder matches. I'll let you know if I pass through your area.

Chris.