The 1860s Target Rifle

[RMulhern]

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/1860TargetRifle.asp

[Wayne Smith]

Roberts book is an excellent read. I have it from NRA's Classic Firearms Library series.

[Buckshot]

............While these were not cartridge rifles, check also: http://www.lrml.org/ After the British Government retained Sir Joseph Whitworth (Not knighted at the time, and also an engineer and NOT a 'gun-guy') to determine why some P53 Enfields were wonderfull shooters, and some off the same line were not, the British developed the Small bore long range muzzle loading match rifle to an exceedingly high degree, utilizing Whitworth's findings.

These types were what the Irish team competed with at Creedmore in 1874, against the Remington RB's and Sharps cartridge rifles. While excellent shooting was done all around, had one of their team members NOT fired on the wrong target they would have carried the day with their muzzle loaders.

..................Buckshot

[StrawHat]

............
had one of their team members NOT fired on the wrong target they would have carried the day with their muzzle loaders.

..................Buckshot


Buckshot,

While you and I know that, there are a lot of guys who own Sharps and Rolling Blocks that won't like to hear that!!!!

Of course modern Olypic medals have been lost doing the same thing.

It is interesting reading about the earlier target rifles and trying to duplicate the scores with recreations of similar rifles.

I read somewhere that for Whitworth, the British government built a several hundred yard indoor rifle range, so he could conduct his work with limited external interferences.

Today, they would just give him a computer and call it good!

Thanks for the links, good reading.

[Buckshot]

.............StrawHat, Yup. HM gov't built him a 500 yard covered range (twice as a storm blew the first down). It may sound like making excuses, but at the time the British had the design and use of these superb instruments well nailed down. The cartridge rifles on the other hand were still a comparatively new development. Consider at the time, the drawing of brass and manufacture of primers being what it was.

Pope and others believed for some time that even for a cartridge rifle, the slug introduced at the muzzle and pre-engraved on the way down the barrel to the mouth of the case was THE most accurate means of shooting. If you think about it it would seem to logicly follow that such would be the case, as the boolit is held in perfect alignment with no throat or leade to deal with.

...............Buckshot

[RMulhern]

Buckshot,

While you and I know that, there are a lot of guys who own Sharps and Rolling Blocks that won't like to hear that!!!!

Of course modern Olypic medals have been lost doing the same thing.

It is interesting reading about the earlier target rifles and trying to duplicate the scores with recreations of similar rifles.

I read somewhere that for Whitworth, the British government built a several hundred yard indoor rifle range, so he could conduct his work with limited external interferences.

Today, they would just give him a computer and call it good!

Thanks for the links, good reading.

Strawhat

"While you and I know that, there are a lot of guys who own Sharps and Rolling Blocks that won't like to hear that!!!!"

From the historical viewpoint MOST GUYS that own Sharps and Rolling Block rifles are well versed to the above facts however the fact of the matter is that...THE BRITISH LOST....using their ML! All part of competition is paying attention to detail and firing on the WRONG TARGET cost one bigtime!

IF a bullfrog had wings....he wouldn't bump his butt everytime he hopped!!:mrgreen::coffee::castmine:

[Buckshot]

[QUOTE=FPMIII;388798]From the historical viewpoint MOST GUYS that own Sharps and Rolling Block rifles are well versed to the above facts however the fact of the matter is that...THE BRITISH LOST....using their ML! All part of competition is paying attention to detail and firing on the WRONG TARGET cost one bigtime![QUOTE]

...........Far be it from me to suggest the cartridge guys weren't shooting well :-). My entire point is on what a close run fight it was.

...............Buckshot

[ResearchPress]

While excellent shooting was done all around, had one of their team members NOT fired on the wrong target they would have carried the day with their muzzle loaders.
Thanks for pointing people in the direction of my web LRML.org site.

Re. the 1874 Creedmoor match. Dakin of the US Team recorded a miss at 900 yards due to a defective round, resulting in his shot falling short. The US team won by 3 points. Dakin would have only needed to have hit the target even if the Irish cross-shot had counted for the US still to have won. I have always been of the view that the Irish cross-shot and the defective round errors cancelled each other out.

Millner in the 1876 Centennial match did redeem himself by being the first person to score 75x75 at 1000 yards (i.e. 15 consecutive bulls-eyes). In the 1908 Olympics held in London he went on to win the Gold Medal in the 1000 yard match.



Pope and others believed for some time that even for a cartridge rifle, the slug introduced at the muzzle and pre-engraved on the way down the barrel to the mouth of the case was THE most accurate means of shooting.
Fulton of the US team in the 1874 match loaded the bullets for his Remington from the muzzle, and was the highest individual scorer.


the fact of the matter is that...THE BRITISH LOST....using their ML!
Actually, and at the risk of being pedantic, it was the Irish team that lost. No British team shot at Creedmoor untill 1877 - where they did loose then, again using muzzle loaders.

David

[Bullshop]

where can I get the book? Winter is comming! Got fresh snow this day on our side of the hill! Will soon be headed for my cave and would like to have an interesting book of this stuff.
thanks!

[Buckshot]

.................Dan, I don't believe there is a book specific to the international matches (but I could be wrong). There probably are a few that deal in varying detail with some of the matches or in various eras.

Hello David! I see your first post was back in June, but in any respect welcome to the board. If I'm not mistaken I think I might have been one of the very first posters when you added a forum to your website (pre E-list). I see you have a new BB type format now. I still shoot my P-H Whitworth some, but spend more time with the Rigby clone I built (better sights :-))

...............Buckshot

[John Boy]

Gentlemen: There are very few historians of BP firearms of the 1860 - 1890 era that are as well versed as David.

Example is an article of interest that was written by WE Metford that I wanted to read. I was even willing to travel to the NYC Library to find it.

May want to read this thread ... http://shilohrifle.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11836
And again, Thanks David. The book is most interesting. It never ceases to amaze me that BPCR shooters of today's age are 're-inventing the wheel' whereas, BPCR shooters of the 1800's determined it - proved it and published it!

And if one doesn't have a copy of Col St John Halford's ... The Art of Shooting with the Rifle ... buy it!

[ResearchPress]

Thanks for the personal welcome!


.................Dan, I don't believe there is a book specific to the international matches (but I could be wrong).

You are correct. Sources on this period are diverse and wide ranging. Have a look at the Creedmoor section of the Resource List (http://www.lrml.org/resources/index.htm) on my LRML.org web site.

I am working with the US publisher Tom Rowe (you may be familiar with amongst others his series of books by Wal Winfer on 'British Single Shot Rifles') on a history of long range shooting. Tom was here in the UK this summer and took around 1000 photo's of guns in British collections. This'll be a couple of years off yet though.

David