Sniping Applications of Roundball

[Bigslug]

The terminal effects thread I launched gave me a far better notion of what a hit from a lead sphere can do. This brings me to the second bit of roundball tech that's been rattling around in my brain - what goes into making the 300 yard Tim Murphy shots of the Revolutionary period?

The typical smoothbore musket of the time had some form of basic barleycorn front sight and no rear sight, but a pretty long barrel to serve as a sight plane. From what I understand, fairly effective at aimed fire for 100-150 yards, and you wouldn't want to stand still to give the other guy a "freebie" at 200, but would probably be fairly safe even so.

I also understand that the typical rifle would have had fixed elevation filed for a given load to a given range and would have been driftable for windage. Perfectly sensible for meat hunting to 100 yards, and workable for a stud marksman for a bit farther.

But for the rare guy of 1778 confident in taking regular pokes at the enemy with roundball beyond 200 yards, what would the technology have looked like? Not just the specifics of caliber, sights, and rifle construction, but of loading process. Safe to say that the "pour about that much powder" method for snuffing deer at 50 yards would hardly be valid from three football fields.

Anyone here dabbling in such things?

[Dryball]

I've dabbled a touch. I have tried an etched/engraved "T" of sorts on the barrel to account for elevation and windage. Having read on Murphy, he used a spotter and several shots to make the one that changed history. He was an interesting fellow. He settled, for a time, in my area with Moses VanCampen.

[GhostHawk]

I suspect at that time there was not a whole lot of tech. Just a lifetime of experience and a bit of trial and error. If I add X this much extra powder and hold X this much high at This range where will the ball hit?

By Civil war there was more tech being developed, science had progressed.

[waksupi]

We played with the smoothbores at 300 yards some years ago. After a few sighting shots, it was pretty clear you wouldn't want us shooting at you at 300 yards. The more you shoot them, the more accurate you get.

[1Hawkeye]

Practice,practice,practice,& luck with a bit of skill. When Billy Dixon made his shot at over 1500 yards he considered it luck. If you know your rifle it's amazing what you can do with it.

[woodbutcher]

[smilie=s: From what I have learned about the Murphy shot,he used a Kentucky long rifle,not a smooth bore.The rifle in question was his personal rifle.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Ballistics in Scotland]

There is no doubt that a round ball (small if fast, big or bigger if slow) can have great killing power. But they lose velocity very quickly. There certainly were kills at 300 or 400 yards in the American War of Independence, but I think they took either great skill plus luck, or moderate skill and a tremendous lot of luck. A Colonel Hanger in 1814 describes a conversation in which told the notorious Colonel Tarleton "We had better move, or we will have two or three of those gentlemen amusing themselves at our expense." A moment later a bullet passed between them and killed his bugler's horse. But Hanger was a knowledgeable authority who admired the American rifle very greatly, and yet didn't just should "Duck!" I think the horse was badly out of luck and a even man might well have been lightly wounded.

There was no such thing as a really good military muzzle-loading rifle until the introduction of the Minié bullet. It isn't easy to achieve really good accuracy with a patched round ball, or with a ribbon-forged barrel, or with the slight delay of a flintlock. In the Napoleonic Wars, after the British had a couple of decades to say like Kipling "We have had no end of a lesson, and it has done it no end of good", Marshal Soult commissioned a report which discovered that the Rifle Brigade had killed some 500 French officers and 8 generals. That was with the Baker rifle, which at 20ga was of much larger bore than the Kentucky rifle, and engraving the bullet in the rifling was a noisy and laborious business. Riflemen had a little mallet for the purpose, and a few smaller balls to make it behave like a smoothbore in a tight corner. When you considered the time it took massed smoothbore armed soldiers to load, or march a couple of hundred yards under robotic drill, General Washington and others seem right to consider the rifle a weapon for special forces and guerrillas.

Here is a target published by Baker in his self-promoting book, and therefore likely if anything to exaggerate its accuracy. Beyond 200 yards the performance was much worse. These targets were known as the eunuchs. I can't imagine why, can you?

215416

Charles Winthrop Sawyer includes in his "Our Rifles", a very different fictional story, concerning the use of this rifle from his collection (which he illustrates) to eliminate a Civil War general:

No. 3y Heavy target rifle. A scientist’s instru-
ment rather than a mere rifle. It was not held in the
hands when fired, but lay on a bench or stout table,
supported, at the forward end, by the steel bracket,
or foot, shown; and at the rear by the set-screw
beneath the breech resting on an inclined plane of
metal; or by an apparatus which was capable of
vertical and horizontal adjustment secured beneath
the breech by means of the set-screw and the adja-
cent steel dowel. The shooter sat behind the rifle
and a little to one side; and could put either shoulder
to the butt, because the stock has a cheek piece on
each side. The recoil, however, was not severe.
Its -weight is thirty-seven pounds; its calibre about
.68; its rifling has six ratchet grooves; the pitch is
of the gain-twist variety, beginning at the breech with
one turn in 5 feet and ending with one turn in 3 feet.
The owner had at least a dozen different bullet
molds casting a great variety of elongated bullets,
cannelured and smooth, long and short for, and not
for, use with patch; and also the hollow base variety
such as the army used in the rifle musket. As to
which kind Captain John Metcalf used, the reader
may make a guess. The telescope, of about 25
power, is so light and has so large a field that it
rivals a best modern one. The scale on its mount-
ings, which are adjustable both vertically and hor-
izontally, reads in minutes of angle. The barrel is
marked “ Abe Williams, Maker.” On an orna-
mental insert in the top of the butt is engraved
“ Little George Lainhart.” On the left side of the
stock are two gold hearts, close together. The
stock is of rosewood, the use of which for gun stocks
has always been unusual. The fittings and finish
of this rifle are of an expensive character.

https://archive.org/stream/Our_Rifles_1944_Charles_Sawyer/Our_Rifles_1944_Charles_Sawyer_djvu.txt

In the story it is used to eliminate an enemy general, with a single shot, at a range of a mile, one hundred and eighty-seven feet. A shooting bench in a special dugout was used, the range measured with a theodolite and base-line, and trials were made on a secluded beach to ascertain the effect of wind and drift. I don't know if any such event happened in the Civil War, but it certainly could have. Our own age isn't the only one when great changes could happen in a few decades.

[Texantothecore]

There is a saying from the revolutionary war period: muskets 200 yards, rifles over 200 yards.

[Bent Ramrod]

“John Metcalf” in Sawyer’s book was a sort of Every(rifle)man who appeared over and over in little vignettes at different times in American history where marksmanship made a difference in battle.

However, I did read somewhere where Federal brigadier James Mulligan in the War Between the States was spotted by a group of Confederate sharpshooters. The leader of the group estimated the range at around 700 yards and calculated a hit probability of no more than 30%. So he had his group of seven get into position together and had them aim and fire a volley on his command.

They got him.

These were Whitworth or Enfield rifles with cylindroconoidal bullets rather than round balls. In either case, a blasé attitude about exposure plus bad luck on the target officer’s part (and the adage that “he who shoots not hits nothing”) would factor in. Even a round ball has to go somewhere.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

There is a saying from the revolutionary war period: muskets 200 yards, rifles over 200 yards.

For over 200 yards, the advantage of the rifle is undeniable, especially if your target is a battalion in close order. But you overestimate the smoothbore musket, as loaded with a loose-fitting bore to permit easy loading when fouled. Appearing out of the smoke of battle at twenty yards (and never forget the smoke), it could be as deadly as any firearm ever made. At seventy you were unlikely to hit the man you aimed at. At 200 I think it was the same Colonel Hanger who said you might as well fire at the man in the moon.

Frontiersmen and Indians, who fired fewer shots, might get about as good results from a tightly patched and well cast ball as the modern user of less than fancy shotgun slugs, if the musket was well bored. But lots weren't, as indeed were even quality shotguns in the days when the owner never got to look through the bores and expect a mirror surface.

One of the most remarkable shots of the period was fired by Queen Victoria at the inaugural meeting at Wimbledon in 1860, although she merely pulled a string to fire a match Whitworth rifle, much lighter than Sawyer's, which had been set up on a heavy machine rest the previous day. The bullet struck an inch and a quarter from the centre of the bull's-eye at 400 yards. The Whitworth had a hexagonal bore and bullet, and was found to suffer severe fouling problems unless match rules permitted wiping out between shots. People like Mr. Metford soon discovered that the hexagonal bore gave enough grip to stabilise a field-gun shell, and the shallowest of rifling would serve just as well.

But not all great inventions are the thing we end up using. It was Mr. Whitworth, an eminent mechanical engineer who started with little knowledge of firearms, was asked by the government to improve on the performance of the muzzle-loading Enfield. They probably just meant him to employ his new methods of extremely precise machining. Well so he did, but he also discovered the benefits of small calibre, fast twist and elongated bullets which were adopted for more practical long-range rifles. It was a more practical means of achieving the high sectional density of Sawyer's .68 calibre rifle with a 36in. final twist.

[koger]

in my experience, which is varied, the person shooting to 300yds, would likely pic out a target over the head of a person he was shooting at, and after a few shots with a heavy load, say 90-100grs of powder with a .50 PRB, be able to walk the shot in on the intended victim. I have tried this myself, and been successful, sitting a large target at the base of a dead tree, and by walking my sight picture up the tree, was able to make consecutive hits, at 325 yds, the target being roughly the size of a mans torso. Given that these men lived with their rifles in hand on a daily basis, and were intimately aware of their rifles capability, as well as their own, it seems likely that they played havoc with the British troops. especially the officers who were known to show themselves to rally their troops. In a British periodical of the time, it was advised that all officers heading to the colonies, have their affairs in order and their wills made out, due to "These shirt tail men, with their cursed twisted rifles, the least which can hit a mans head at 200 paces", and their affinity to targeting officers which left the enlisted men without a semblance of order. This quote was from the book The Frontier Rifleman.

[Dryball]

Timothy's rifle was a double/swivel breech. http://www.americanrevolution.org/murphy.php
Some of the ole' timers were good shots. You should see the requirements to be part of Morgan's Riflemen or the 1st PIR.

[waksupi]

[smilie=s: From what I have learned about the Murphy shot,he used a Kentucky long rifle,not a smooth bore.The rifle in question was his personal rifle.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

I believe he was using an Isaac Haines rifle.

[woodbutcher]

[smilie=s: Hi Waksupi.The info that I posted is from the Discovery Channel series about the Revolutionary War.It is currently being aired on the AHC channel.Maybe they need to do more research.The series is pretty old,as the narator IIRC is Charles Karault.Thanks for the heads up.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[Larry Gibson]

Back in Murphy's day (I have a fictional book based on his biography titled "The Rifleman", excellent book BTW) they used, for elevation for various ranges a fine bead, full bead, high bead and sometimes course bead. All had to do with the amount of front sight held up in the V or buckhorn rear sights of the day. Murphy was a very accomplished shot.

[Bigslug]

I guess I'm mainly concerned with what the field kit of a serious shooter of the day would have consisted of. An appropriate powder measure could be any tube cut to desired length once the rifle's "happy charge" was figured out. Would the pre-measured paper cartridge have any place among such men?

Patches would likely be pre-cut out of whatever material was found to be the right thickness.

Tallow for patch lube? Presumably a pewter tin full of goo?

Ramrods are a question. . .one hears about needing to pound a ball down atop the charge with a mallet, yet iron ramrods seemed to be a predominantly military musket item, while these supposedly hard to load Pennsylvanias used wooden dowels which should be highly subject to self-destruction.

Ball-starters: Something you'd actually carry in the field, or a target-shooter's range tool?

And cleaning the things. . .one figures that the average grunt treated his musket as average grunts often will - like the "rented" equipment it was. A rifleman bringing his own tool, purchased at significant expense, to the party, would not be letting sulfides eat away at it. And, oh yeah, he's probably casting his own balls to fit his non-standardized bore.

We know that soldiers have carried a load of about 65 pounds since the dawn of time. It seems unlikely that the image of Natty Bummpo running around upstate New York in only his shirttails and possibles bag is an accurate one. Most of a practitioner's kit would seem to be things one wouldn't want to trust to be left on the support wagons.

In short, how did they streamline the functions of gear that for us today seems to sprawl out over two shooting benches?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I never heard of a mallet being used with Kentucky rifles, and I am sure they responded badly to as much sustained fire as might sometimes be required of a soldier in a tight corner. The only one I ever owned, a replica, certainly did. I think the patch used was likely to be thicker and more resilient than target shooters of later (but muzzle-loading) days would have liked, and while only a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if they carried a few thinner patches in case faster loading was required, as the British Rifle Brigade did smaller balls.

A patched ball, especially with thick fabric, surely couldn't place the ball as centrally in the rifling as the wrap-around and cross-patch systems of the later muzzle-loaders. But the slower the twist, the less the inaccuracy that would result. It was eventually discovered that nothing close to Kentucky rifle barrel length was really needed, but although some black powders were at least the equal of anything made today, a lot wasn't. Maybe that barrel length was a response to unusually slow-burning powder, and also, by slower acceleration of the ball, permitted it to be spun with a less tight fit.

I swear I knew a very sold soldier who had seen a man charged with attempted murder and keeping a dirty rifle. I don't know if he was convicted, but the practice has continued to the present day, in British civil law, of upping a lesser charge to attempted murder to get a man acquitted after a wholesome fright. I used to be amazed to see film of soldiers in the jungle of Vietnam, carrying loads which surely increased the tendency to make noise. But no doubt people who knew the business decided that the payload did them more good.

[rfd]

July 2013 American Rifleman - Chris Kyle's AmRev sniper article, 68meg pdf file ...

www.blackpowdergang.com/media/chris_kyle_rev_snipers.pdf

[Ballistics in Scotland]

General Simon Fraser came of a branch of the Lord Lovat Fraser family, who usually are also named Simon, and are no strangers to sniping. One Lord Lovat, aged 80, was the last man publicly beheaded on Tower Hill for rebellion in 1747, and his heir, during a temporary suspension of the title, was rather confusingly another General Simon Fraser in the American war. A later Lord Lovat founded the Lovat Scouts, originally from deerstalkers etc. from his own estates, who became the principle sniping specialists in the British army in the Boer and World Wars. They were commanded in the Boer War by Frederick Russell Burnham, an American adventurer had assisted Cecil Rhodes in purloining Rhodesia, and became Lord Roberts's Chief of Scouts in South Africa.

The fifteenth Lord Lovat violated orders by having his personal piper pipe his Commando brigade ashore in Normandy, after various lesser excursions to the Continent. They are portrayed in "The Longest Day" leading his men to Pegasus Bridge with his personal stalking rifle, probably a .30-06 Winchester 70, although he is also reported to have carried a .45-70 Winchester and perhaps an M1 Carbine. He was probably the last British general to deliberately set out to kill an enemy, when his men were held up by two snipers, and he couldn't delegate that to people who knew the business less than he did. He killed one sniper and the other escaped.

[taco650]

I believe a 300 yd round ball shot could be deadly although the shooter would have to be very experienced.

Also, a follow up to Ballistics in Scotland's comment on the Baker Rifle. The guy who does the "British Muzzleloaders" channel on YouTube has several videos on the history of as well as shooting a reproduction Baker Rifle at ranges of 100, 200 & 300 yards and after seeing his results, I wouldn't want to be standing in the open when he's shooting his Baker at 300! His load is a .61 cal PBR over 95gr of 2f. Worth watching IMO.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Yes, but a man armed with a smoothbore musket could go quite a bit of that distance while he was reloading, and with two or three of them he would really be in trouble. French skirmishers could reload at the double, striking the butt on the ground to seat a loose ball. The riflemen were specialists, depended on numbers, cover and distance, and in Spain at the least, they were often distributed at a company or so per line division.

The term "line", for ordinary infantry, is an eloquent one. The British army was exclusive volunteer in the Napoleonic, if you count a judge or magistrate sometimes offering an alternative. Commanders like the Duke had to conserve their lives except in the most drastic need, and remained capable of standing in line of battle right up to Waterloo, and firing and loading in two or three groups. Organised volleys offered the best chance of windows in the smoke. Napoleon started out with badly disciplined revolutionary armies and later conscripts, with many of the former regime's officers guillotined or travelling for the good of their health. That is why his men advanced in rectangular columns, with the front few ranks intended to be expended, and he disliked small-scale skirmishing, which Spanish guerrillas did rather well. He actually withdrew the few rifles the monarchist regime had used, but with his material and in his situation, it wasn't bad logic.

You would probably like CS Forester's "Death to the French", which is the story of a Rifleman Dodd who is separated from his unit, and becomes a leader of Spanish guerrillas. He isn't a man of unusual intelligence or unusual courage, but he has been taught to make the best use of what he has got.

The 60th Rifles were raised as the Royal Americans in the Seven Years War, and although by the time of the American Revolution they were mostly British, served very creditably there. In 1914 they were considered a loophole for Americans who wanted to get into the First World War early. I don't know if that had any validity in law, but they didn't ask too many questions at the time.

[hondo1892]

I will tell you all what I know about original Kentucky's and what I have read from old accounts. Original Kentucky rifles have very low sights. The one I own has a front sight that is 1/16" or a little less and I've seen others with even lower front sights. When looking down the barrel there is not much of a front sight to use a real coarse sight picture. All the accounts that I have read about sighting in a rifle the barrel was bent rather than drifting one of the sights. They may have done some rear sight drifting by a gun maker but don't know for sure. Most people have come to believe that Kentucky rifles had small bores and slow twist rifling. However the ones made during the Rev war were as large as .65 and some of the old rifles had twist rates as fast as 1 in 39" or so. I have read accounts of riflemen on the frontier fighting Native Americans and "loading a double charge of powder and two balls" to shoot at distant warriors. They also used thinner patching material when they forted up and were expecting a fight. I don't know what rifle was used for the famous shot. I have read and heard different ones so I'm not sure anyone knows for sure. What I do know is it had a wrought iron barrel on it and it has lots of imperfections in it. You could never get a slick bore with it like you can with steel. However they still shoot very well, never owned one myself but know others that have and they shoot better than you can. The men making those long shots back then used their rifles to make a living by hunting. Using the same rifle everyday you learn a lot about it and how you need to hold to make different shots. My eye sight has never been good enough to make shots like that with open sights. I'm not a ballistic guru or big time target shooter so I can't comment on the technical stuff of bullet flight at different distances. I'm just throwing out there what little I do know. I've seen hundreds of old rifles over the years and talked with collectors and other builders that have checked out rifling twist rates in the old rifles. You can't really compare the old rifles to the new ones being built today. Production rifles usually have poorly tuned locks and many don't have the vent liners set up right. Custom rifles have well tuned locks and use vent liners which were never used by American builders in the 18th century. Very few rifles have the low sights on them either. I have low sights on my personal rifle and on a hot day the front sight has heat mirage by the third shot, they also are hard to see when the sun is bright.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Well if I was going to set out to wring out all the accuracy I could get from my .54 Early Virginia, I would have my horn, powder measure, a tight patch/ball combo, a cleaning jag and some swabbing patches, and a short starter, patch knife. Above all, I think the most critical piece of equipment would have been the best telescope money could buy so his spotter could tell him where the last ball landed.

I think if the wind was calm, it wouldn't be too difficult to "walk" the balls on target. In the 1700s officers felt it would be cowardly to "hide" from an enemy 300 yards away, so you probably could get a couple shots off before the officers got nervous. The other thing to remember is that in combat they don't worry about "humane kills", so a gut shot is a perfectly great hit. They don't have to worry about tracking, or recovering the quarry, or meat damage. Likely as not, even a good leg hit would result in the target being hauled off the battlefield and quite possibly dying of infection a week later. So their 300 yard sniper shots were not the same at us picking off a deer at 300 yards with an '06.

[kens]

I have as of now (this past Sunday) witnessed shooters who have failed to even 'hit the berm' with a Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor @ 400 yards. Not to mention even hitting the steel gong thereto.
I have numerous round ball rifles, and as such, with what I have personally witnessed, I may have give the round ball a go at the longer ranges.
(I just never tried to stretch a round ball beyond 100yards)

[taco650]

I have as of now (this past Sunday) witnessed shooters who have failed to even 'hit the berm' with a Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor @ 400 yards. Not to mention even hitting the steel gong thereto.
I have numerous round ball rifles, and as such, with what I have personally witnessed, I may have give the round ball a go at the longer ranges.
(I just never tried to stretch a round ball beyond 100yards)

I think the shooter you witnessed has something missing because I have hit a 16" steel plate from 400 yd with my old Ruger M-77RS with my own 125gr. handloads so I know it can be done and I'm an average shooter. With a little more range time with my .50 Traditions Kentucky rifle I'd be willing to lob some balls that far although I'd probably only be able to keep them on a 4x8 sheet of plywood.

[indian joe]

Well if I was going to set out to wring out all the accuracy I could get from my .54 Early Virginia, I would have my horn, powder measure, a tight patch/ball combo, a cleaning jag and some swabbing patches, and a short starter, patch knife. Above all, I think the most critical piece of equipment would have been the best telescope money could buy so his spotter could tell him where the last ball landed.

I think if the wind was calm, it wouldn't be too difficult to "walk" the balls on target. In the 1700s officers felt it would be cowardly to "hide" from an enemy 300 yards away, so you probably could get a couple shots off before the officers got nervous. The other thing to remember is that in combat they don't worry about "humane kills", so a gut shot is a perfectly great hit. They don't have to worry about tracking, or recovering the quarry, or meat damage. Likely as not, even a good leg hit would result in the target being hauled off the battlefield and quite possibly dying of infection a week later. So their 300 yard sniper shots were not the same at us picking off a deer at 300 yards with an '06.

Black Jack ....I reckon its doable - a good roundball gun properly loaded is capable of groups round two inches at 100yards, probably accurate enough to take somebodys head off at two hundred - I run a 54 loaded hard and it will do 1800FPS at the muzzle - sighted in for 150 would put the ball 9inches high at the midrange and 2 feet low at 200yards - a practiced rifleman would be deadly dangerous working like that - you have over ten feet of drop at 300 but the ball still has 600FPS - Ever wondered what the ears on a buckhorn sight were for ? Most "Embellishments" from those days had a purpose even if we have yet to figure that out - I reckon you could unhorse the general at the least .

[kens]

My gunsmith has a 10ga shotgun that he throws pumpkin balls with. He is telling of hitting clay pigeon at 50yards every time, and a dinner plate at 100.....smoothbore.
Give the pumpkin ball a slow twist and I believe it would be good for 200 yards, with a rifleman at the controls.
and, back in the day of the muzzle loaders, 'sniping' was probably about 200 yards.

[waksupi]

My gunsmith has a 10ga shotgun that he throws pumpkin balls with. He is telling of hitting clay pigeon at 50yards every time, and a dinner plate at 100.....smoothbore.
Give the pumpkin ball a slow twist and I believe it would be good for 200 yards, with a rifleman at the controls.
and, back in the day of the muzzle loaders, 'sniping' was probably about 200 yards.

Even in modern days, a friend tells me when working the Mekong Delta as a sniper, he very seldom took a shot at over 300 yards, and most were under 200. Colonel David Hackworth wrote about him in "Steel my Soldiers Heart".

[indian joe]

My gunsmith has a 10ga shotgun that he throws pumpkin balls with. He is telling of hitting clay pigeon at 50yards every time, and a dinner plate at 100.....smoothbore.
Give the pumpkin ball a slow twist and I believe it would be good for 200 yards, with a rifleman at the controls.
and, back in the day of the muzzle loaders, 'sniping' was probably about 200 yards.

Punkin Rollers!
many moons ago a mate and I picked up a 16 gauge ball mold at a farm auction (talking late 1960's and us just left school) I had just previous to that acquired a rattly worn out belgian DB 12 gauge with a blown right side barrel - looked like the duck hunter had took a stumble in the swamp and pulled one on a blocked barrel or the gun was maybe left in an outbuilding someplace and hornets nested in it - anyways five bucks was the gunsmiths price so it came home with me - have to hacksaw this to make it work - choke is gone so we may as well do a proper job - legal those days was 16 inch barrel so we cut it 16 and one quarter to allow for cops with shrunken tape measures - then I trimmed the forend back and took about inch and a half off the stock -- its surprising how balancing the dimensions a bit overcomes the shortened firearm look -- soooo-- what next ? Well we had to do something with that mold, we were setup for casting for our 32/20's - so we made some pure lead ball (yeah we had read some boooks about this stuff) ugly ball they were we cut the sprues off - what now ? we got a 12 gauge gun and a 16 gauge ball! I know ! lets use the plastic wad cup (a relatively new invention at the time!) ---ooooops - no - that ball is still too small - well Danl Boon used a greased patch in a muzzle loader - hows about that? (this is two kids in 1969!) so we loaded the 16 g ball in a 2x4 cleaning patch slathered in axle grease down into the plastic wad cup - neat! just a nice firm fit - fired into a gum tree at about twenty yards that ball flattened out to over an inch across - but hey it almost hit where it was pointed --- back to the drawing board here - we fitted a martini backsight to the rib - screwed a brass screw down into the cutoff rib at the front and filed it to fit - decent sights now - we had windage and elevation -- cut to the chase - shot carefully that thing would make a group at fifty yards about five inches wide and three inches high - both barrels. Have since seen some very impressive shooting with roundballs out of smooth tubes. Not sure about 200 though I think that is rifle territory .

[kens]

Punkin Rollers!
many moons ago a mate and I picked up a 16 gauge ball mold at a farm auction (talking late 1960's and us just left school) I had just previous to that acquired a rattly worn out belgian DB 12 gauge with a blown right side barrel - looked like the duck hunter had took a stumble in the swamp and pulled one on a blocked barrel or the gun was maybe left in an outbuilding someplace and hornets nested in it - anyways five bucks was the gunsmiths price so it came home with me - have to hacksaw this to make it work - choke is gone so we may as well do a proper job - legal those days was 16 inch barrel so we cut it 16 and one quarter to allow for cops with shrunken tape measures - then I trimmed the forend back and took about inch and a half off the stock -- its surprising how balancing the dimensions a bit overcomes the shortened firearm look -- soooo-- what next ? Well we had to do something with that mold, we were setup for casting for our 32/20's - so we made some pure lead ball (yeah we had read some boooks about this stuff) ugly ball they were we cut the sprues off - what now ? we got a 12 gauge gun and a 16 gauge ball! I know ! lets use the plastic wad cup (a relatively new invention at the time!) ---ooooops - no - that ball is still too small - well Danl Boon used a greased patch in a muzzle loader - hows about that? (this is two kids in 1969!) so we loaded the 16 g ball in a 2x4 cleaning patch slathered in axle grease down into the plastic wad cup - neat! just a nice firm fit - fired into a gum tree at about twenty yards that ball flattened out to over an inch across - but hey it almost hit where it was pointed --- back to the drawing board here - we fitted a martini backsight to the rib - screwed a brass screw down into the cutoff rib at the front and filed it to fit - decent sights now - we had windage and elevation -- cut to the chase - shot carefully that thing would make a group at fifty yards about five inches wide and three inches high - both barrels. Have since seen some very impressive shooting with roundballs out of smooth tubes. Not sure about 200 though I think that is rifle territory .

My point is that round balls are worth more credit than they are given. They are generally given NO credit. A good smoothbore, with a properly sized pumpkin ball can surprise you. A good rifled barrel, with twist optimised for said pumpkin ball, will surprise you to another degree. If you step up to the next level, you shoot conicals (bullets) out of a twist barrel optimised for the bullet, you get surprised again. Be they muzzle loaders, round balls, or whatever, there is merit to be had, provided a marksman at the controls.
The key here is 'marksman at the controls'. I have witnessed guys with the Ruger Precision Rifle in 6.5 Creedmoor that couldnt hit the berm at 400 yards.
I think a 'true marksman' with a round ball could at least 'hit the berm'

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Indeed. If there is any such thing as a bullet that is inherently accurate it is the roundball. It can't tumble or yaw. They are certainly capable of accuracy - they just drop terribly past 100 yards.

[indian joe]

[QUOTE=kens;4331015]My point is that round balls are worth more credit than they are given. They are generally given NO credit. A good smoothbore, with a properly sized pumpkin ball can surprise you. A good rifled barrel, with twist optimised for said pumpkin ball, will surprise you to another degree. If you step up to the next level, you shoot conicals (bullets) out of a twist barrel optimised for the bullet, you get surprised again. Be they muzzle loaders, round balls, or whatever, there is merit to be had, provided a marksman at the controls.
The key here is 'marksman at the controls'.

I get your point - I have had a couple of roundball rifles that I would have loved to put a good telescope on and get serious just to see what they really could do - just was (would have been) a lot of work to prove a point - I am convinced they both would have gone inside two inches at 100yards for ten shot groups - not match barrels - just run of the mill factory guns loaded properly.

[kens]

I am interested in the cone of fire of roundball at the long distances. We all agree they drop terribly, but, will they still maintain a group?
Match grade RB barrels shoot cloverleafs at 100 yards

[Ballistics in Scotland]

They generally get quite a lot of credit. But it is for impact effect (pretty much guaranteeing the frontal area the advertisement pictures claim an elongated bullet of the same weight will expand to), and for short-range accuracy. Even then it is a bit easier to make a bullet with a paper patched cylindrical section work, than a round ball patched in cloth or leather. It takes great care to avoid the wrinkles positioning the centre of mass off-centre.

Almost nothing but a smoothbore gives insufficient twist to stabilise a round ball. But from a smoothbore they do tumble. It is just that you don't have any way of detecting it. If the bullet rolls in flight, the airflow is travelling faster over the forward-moving side than the backward-moving one. The result is the bullet moving in a curved path.

This rolling can arise in two different ways. The worst, because it is the earliest, is rolling along the surface of the bore. Frontiersmen and Indians probably patched and wadded their balls tightly to prevent this, but soldiers in line of battle, at a time when letting a well-drilled enemy double from a hundred yards to twenty meant disaster, couldn't afford the time.

Then the other form of roll begins in flight. General Hatcher believed an unspinning ball built up a cushion of air in front of it, and at some unpredictable point slipped out from behind it. The curved path, and the late escape from the air-cushion, would certainly explain why smoothbore round ball groups at 100 yards are likely to be much more than double the size of the fifty-yard ones.

Long ago I had a washing-machine from before the rotating-drum automatics. A wheel in the side, with several radial ridges not over half an inch in height, was enough to set the whole load of water and clothes spinning. It may be that the air friction and spin of the round rifle bullet is enough to keep throwing off that air-cushion by centrifugal force, before it is enough to obstruct the bullet's forward motion.

If that is true (and I don't have any firm evidence), the use of the slowest twist that will stabilise a bullet may not be the best choice for long-range accuracy.

[indian joe]

I am interested in the cone of fire of roundball at the long distances. We all agree they drop terribly, but, will they still maintain a group?
Match grade RB barrels shoot cloverleafs at 100 yards

I believe that possible - however when I am told they do it with open sights and standing on their two hind legs ......................................

[kens]

I believe that possible - however when I am told they do it with open sights and standing on their two hind legs ......................................

I am not speaking of standing offhand.
There are such things as benchreast matches at 100yards, open or peep sights.
What I am proposing is scoping a fine, heavy barrelled round ball gun and stretch it out to 200, from a bench.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I believe that possible - however when I am told they do it with open sights and standing on their two hind legs ......................................

That sort of performance was certainly achieved in the great days of scheutzen shooting, with very specialised rifles which were most often loaded with a charged case and either a muzzle-loaded or separately breech-seated cylindro-conical bullet. But the reaction if anybody turned up to use round ball in those matches would be to pity his parents in case the word got around.

[heelerau]

I believe a 300 yd round ball shot could be deadly although the shooter would have to be very experienced.

Also, a follow up to Ballistics in Scotland's comment on the Baker Rifle. The guy who does the "British Muzzleloaders" channel on YouTube has several videos on the history of as well as shooting a reproduction Baker Rifle at ranges of 100, 200 & 300 yards and after seeing his results, I wouldn't want to be standing in the open when he's shooting his Baker at 300! His load is a .61 cal PBR over 95gr of 2f. Worth watching IMO.



Rob from the Canadas who is the chap mentioned here has done a lot of good work with Baker rifles amongst others. The Baker in the hands of an experience shot like Plunkett could do fairly repeatable long range shots with a round ball. I am thinking that a lot of chaps experienced with their long rifles could pull of a long shot, perhaps 3 out of five being a strike at ranges far exceeding the Bess using its issue ammunition. Smooth bores are surprisingly accurate when loaded with tight fitting ball and patch and even proper cartridge, once again in the hands of experienced shots.
As a kid I shot a lot of rabbits at 30 to 40 yards with a civilian version of a Pat 1842 percussion smoothbore musket. Patched round ball this gun was fitted with a fixed rear and a front sight and I was surprised at how well I shot with it when out hunting.

[indian joe]

I am not speaking of standing offhand.

yeah I know .....just sayin tho.
There are such things as benchreast matches at 100yards, open or peep sights.
What I am proposing is scoping a fine, heavy barrelled round ball gun and stretch it out to 200, from a bench.

that would be fun - and I bet you get better result than most would think - I'm guessing with a really good ball gun on a dead calm day you might do 4inches at 200 yards - good enough to do that headshot on a redcoat colonel (am told the redcoat brass had big heads)

[Wayne Smith]

There have always been, and presumably always will be, exceptional men with exceptional eyesight and exceptional ability to hold a position. They will always be the best shooters among us.