How accurate are the original Buffalo rifles and schuetzen rifles?

[felix]

Don. you would have to been one of the computer programmers to say you have shot one of those big ones (late VietNam era). In other words, the computer would fire the guns only when ALL the conditions were satisfied via the sensors and computations thereof. Yes, a football field square would be about 1.5 MOA at 26 miles. The naked eyeball cannot see more than 20 because the horizon would block all sight of the target. Remember, the shooting platform and weather throughout to the target is moving too. Of course, we can say the same for off-hand 1000 yard shooting too. ... felix

[Don McDowell]

Felix , what this **** about naval guns has to do with bpcr rifles, must of been one of those had to be there things....
But funny you should bring up 1000 yd offhand shooting... One of the things they do at the Sagebrush match is have a 1000 yd off hand match... There's a few folks can lay a round right close or on that target on the first round.
Several of the "gong" matches there are no sighter shots during the match, and it shows time and time again, the shooters that are on target on the first round at each target generally end up in the top 10 finishers, as they're not burning precious shots for score by trying to chase the target.

[GabbyM]

Don. you would have to been one of the computer programmers to say you have shot one of those big ones (late VietNam era). In other words, the computer would fire the guns only when ALL the conditions were satisfied via the sensors and computations thereof. Yes, a football field square would be about 1.5 MOA at 26 miles. The naked eyeball cannot see more than 20 because the horizon would block all sight of the target. Remember, the shooting platform and weather throughout to the target is moving too. Of course, we can say the same for off-hand 1000 yard shooting too. ... felix

Felix you must of been tired late at night when you posted that simple solution.

Not saying you're incorrect. Just that there is a pile of work between targeting X and hitting X. Back in the day. Not just punching in a number on a keypad then waiting on a solution. Like today. Which is why battle ships are not in use. We poor rifle shooters do not have an 80 thousand dollar computer to go shoot a rabbit with. Much less a 1.5 Billion dollar navel rifle.

US navy made good use of the 45-70 Gatling gun for many years. Spanish American war era. It worked so well that it's not something I want to write about.

[felix]

The dates are messed up, Gabby. Prolly it was the WI (BB64) gun(s) that used the fancy "sighting" gear during the Gulf War. I am more awake now, sort of, and I am still not sure of how extensive the equipment went into the gun turrets. For example, were servos used or not? It was interesting in that only the four IA class ships had individual gun movement. ... felix

[missionary5155]

[QUOTE=DanWalker;2521034]In 1991 I saw raggedy A$$ed Saudi Arabian tankers making first round hits at 2,000 yards with Vietnam era M60 tanks.

Greetings... The optical rangefinder and "computer" co-ordinated m68 105 mm gun on the M60 and A1 tanks was extremely accurate. If the system was properly boresighted and then "zeroed" using the mechanical elevator laying the sights on target on the upswing of the main gun hitting 2x4"s at 1200 yards out 1800 yards was not a problem. A company 1-66 Armor at Ft Hood 1971-1972 did this routinely at the close of a day. We had to "police up"the target stands when finished so we decided it was far better to get in some real practice rather that shooting at 6' x 6' canvas targets with a 2 foot circle painted on it. The "heat"practice round was possible the most accurate round I ever fired down range. But everything depended on the gun system being properly calibrated and sighted. If the TC knew how to range then the only thing the gunner had to do was apply the 10x crosshair on target if it was stationary.
So making first round hits at 2000 yards on a tank target from a conceled position... no problem. Look into the Israli tankers... they were making first round hits on Egyptian T55"s in excess of 4000meters in 1973 with M60 tanks.
Mike in Peru

[DanWalker]

Well pard, I didn't want to say WHAT they were hitting, for fear of being called a liar. Yeah, they were cutting the 2x4 legs off the targets at 2000 meters. Hitting them about 85 percent of the time.

[seaboltm]

As to Billy Dixon's shot, it was nearly a mile, some 1500 yards, and yes, Dixon did say he just fired into the crowd. As I recall he used a 50-90 Sharps. But he hit someone on his 3rd shot . . . so I have to agree he had a good idea of the range. I also know I would not want him shooting at me at 1500 yards! Luck or not, he just might hit me!

[Wayne Smith]

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

[montana_charlie]

Frankford Arsenal had a mechanical Range finder that was issued to special Troops in the Civil War, maybe your Shooter has one of these you can find a copy of them on Ebay once calibrated for your eye these are very accurate.

Kenny W

This guy makes a nicer copy than those on eBay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwGDP...PKSG-qx9dJroew

[montana_charlie]

Not sure what your talking about Charlie, this one: is the same guy on the video you posted,
even says made by Cap and Ball on it.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Civil-War-ra...E:L:OC:US:3160

Yep.
I had forgotten that he has also started selling them on eBay.
It was the poor selection, there, which prompted him to start making them.

[EdZ KG6UTS]

there was a great pride in craftsmanship back then. Just in general.

Well, we were a manufacturing economy back then and working people honed those skills. Just look at the "home projects" in old Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Mechanics Illustrated up through the early '60s. Also, shooting was an accepted social sport not maligned as some kind of aberrant behavior.

EdZ KG6UTS

[Lead pot]

ED dont forget to renew your ticket before 2014-04-26

[Digital Dan]

My testimony is of little note. I suggest you Google "Billy Dixon at Adobe Wells".

[Bullshop]

Also look up "The Roland Pope group"
As I recall the group was about 3/4" for 20 shots at 40 rods. I think 40 rods is 220 yards. I also think it was shot with a 38/55 on a Pope barreled Stevens action with black powder and cast boolits.
I believe it was the world record for about 70 years.
My recollections on all this may need slight adjustment but the facts are impressive just the same.

[Digital Dan]

Your recollections are doing fine.

When I hear or read questions of this nature my first reflex is that the boys from back then were a heck if a lot more sophisticated than most people think today.

40 rods is 220 yards. Matches of 80 to 160 rods were not uncommon.

That said, the bison might have some insights on the question as well.

[Digital Dan]

And fair warning: if you volunteer to be a target at one mile for Kenny W. and his Sharps, make sure your affairs are in order.

[mikeym1a]

Your recollections are doing fine.

When I hear or read questions of this nature my first reflex is that the boys from back then were a heck if a lot more sophisticated than most people think today.

40 rods is 220 yards. Matches of 80 to 160 rods were not uncommon.

That said, the bison might have some insights on the question as well.

Too many people think '....old = antiquated = uneducated...' . They were working state of the art at the time. Many were very highly educated, and their only limitations were those placed on them by the technology of the day. I have read diaries from several notable people from the mid 19th century, and if you were reading that 'in the blind', you would have trouble telling them apart from something written last week. mikey

[chrissy4560]

Me either, wish i was thought. i have great respect for those guys. they are like the sharpshooters of the 1800's where they could hit people out at 1000 yards. i can even see that far. lol

[William Cameron]

Hi, first post. Been interested in Black Powder guns since I was in my 20's 4 decades ago...but being in Germany, and playing golf...sort of limited my BP shooting activity. A .44 Walker and .36 Navy was as far as I got in owning. I'm writing a western so had to be accurate with the guns, cartridges and so on. I still have Gun Digest books from the '70's. I do have a 1000 yard shooting contest in my book. Remington, Sharps and Peabody are the rifles used.

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

There was a 3,000 yard range on Galveston beach in 1880. How big the target was, I don't know. A tid bit one reads when looking up how far could they shoot, and is engraved in the mind.

The best target vernier sights of the day I believe could be adjusted to the 1,000th of an inch. I know that sounds wrong, but some one wrote that, and seemed to know what he was talking about. One tenth of an eyelash. One would have had to have a real steady hand to tighten the screw down. Accuracy of metal work was good. The 1910 or so the Lincoln measuring/calibrating blocks were accurate to 1/10,000s of an inch, which is why Lincoln made the best cars in the world for so long.

One must remember they had great watches too back then...so accurate metal work was not impossible.

Shooters were just a finicky then as now, to what powder worked best out of that gun, with it's false muzzle loaded swagged paper wrapped slug. The mix of lead to tin for the two part slug had to match the rifle also. They were shooting for money...and also shot for money in the 200 yard Schuetzen shooting.

One had to know exactly how far a target was. Black powder rifles shot like a mortar. In the winter of '63 the Union army finally taught it's troops to shoot a rifle instead of them just volleying it like the muskets of the Mexican War.

There was a gadget called a Stadium, a metal sliding bar range finder at the end of a 28 inch string, held to the chin, allowed the Sargent to slide the bar down to see how far away the man was (on the obverse side was a scale for a man on a horse). If a is standing 250 yards away and the rifle was sighted for 200 yards the bullet would hit at his feet. If sighted for 300 yards would fly over his head.

In that a pistol was sighted in at 100 yards, as good as a common musket. There were a couple of gun fights in that mattered. The Hitckock-Tutt which took place at 50-75 yards depending on who said, or the March 9, 1877, the Levy-Harrison gunfight where it was not Harrison lost his nerve, but IMO Levy was some 40-50 yards away and the bullets flew over his head. Just like for Hitchcock.

I was once back in the '70-80's and was sort of upset, some one(a known 'expert') wrote in one of the Gun Digest catalogs filed at the sight of his real Colt .45/44, to make it shoot at 25 yards. I'd already read about the pistols being sighted at 100 yards because of the Walker Colt. The horse pistols, Walker and Dragoons had to shoot long, in one had only a single shot rifle. One of the reason's one was told to shoot low.

Most buffalo hunting was done between 200-400 yards, in one didn't want to scatter the hides all over the Prairie. The skinners didn't want a scattered kill. Only enough buffalo were killed as the skinners could skin out in what was left of the day.
I had read some buffalo hunter got more knock down power out of a Government .50-70 than he did out of the later .45-90.
There were a lot of .50-70 trap doors given to free to pioneers from Kansas/Missouri forts so they could defend them selves and kill buffalo.

Shooting may have been as popular as baseball....and 1880 Baseball was still fast pitch underhand. Cap Anson had invented the first baseball glove, in 1876 a Harvard boy who liked his face invented the catcher's mask....no glove on any one yet. The catcher played back, catching a low one on the bounce or a high one, hot. Home plate was a flat square pointed at the pitcher; a diamond.
You could call for a low one, or a high one...9 balls...in if you called for a low one, and got a high one the only ump behind the pitching point ( a 4'by6' box) would call it a ball.
Of course I have a baseball game in the book, how can you have a western with out a baseball game.

[MT Chambers]

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