Post by: Puffer on November 20, 2005, 09:32:32 PM
You and Sir Michael have stirred my interest in the Baker rifle.
What are the characteristics that make it so appealing to you? Was it manufactured in England?
When will I see the numbers on the score card?
Old Salt
Old Salt, I am going to answer these ??? in the Flint lock section
Puffer
_________________
TMA CHARTER MEMBER # 133
Old Salt, before I answer the above, here are some ref.s you might want to check out.
"British Military Flintlock Rifles ', by De Witt Baily, Ph.D.
- Andrew Mowbray Pub. 2002 ( this book , IMO, is the best I have found. - Avail. from Track of the Wolf )
http://www.home.vinet.netau/~rifles95/rifle.htm (http://www.home.vinet.netau/~rifles95/rifle.htm)
http://www.personal.usyd.ed.au/~slaw/SuesPage/baker.htm (http://www.personal.usyd.ed.au/~slaw/SuesPage/baker.htm)
YES the baker was made in England.
When I chose my persona, ( Capt. Can Rifle Militia et al ) I needed to arm myself & my men W/ a rifle. I had a Jager, that would have worked, BUT hey, I was a Hayden-Douglas & I could get the best. After researching it out w / Sir Michael's assistance, there was only one choice, the BAKER. Why ??.
1. It was the "GARAND" of it's day. For over 40 yr.s, YES 40 yr.s ( the longest issued Rifle in history) =D> It was carried by all British rifleman in every theater in the Empire.
2. It's one heck of a weapon. when I fired Michael's , I knew I had to have one.
It weighs over 9.5 lb.s But my favorite guns are "heavy"( Wt. a little more than my Tyron or Mortimer or my Garand, M-14 or SOCOM16 for that matter)
As to targets, you'll have to wait awhile :? :?
thanks for your interest
Puffer
Post by: Old Salt on November 20, 2005, 10:09:34 PM
ThanKs for the link. I'll look them over closer tomorrow.
Do you know what American made rifle would have been concurrent with the Baker? I'm thinking something from Harper's Ferry but I might be a bit early on the time line.
Maybe we can stir up a little British vs American model competition sometime in the future. Ey?
Old Salt
Post by: Puffer on November 20, 2005, 10:35:47 PM
Quote from: "Old Salt"
Puffer,1st, I SCREWED up in my post , :roll: :roll: should have read 40 years not 140. (changed it) :mozilla_oops: :mozilla_oops:
Thanks for the link. I'll look them over closer tomorrow.
Do you know what American made rifle would have been concurrent with the Baker? I'm thinking something from Harper's Ferry but I might be a bit early on the time line.
Maybe we can stir up a little British vs American model competition sometime in the future. Ey?
Old Salt
Will do, BUT what time frame ?? we have 40 yr.s to cover. 17 :D/
Puffer
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 01:10:51 AM
Quote from: "Puffer"
Old Salt wrote:
You and Sir Michael have stirred my interest in the Baker rifle.
What are the characteristics that make it so appealing to you? Was it manufactured in England?
When will I see the numbers on the score card?
Puffer
Old Salt,
Just finished a conversation with Puffer. He caught me up and let me know I should chime in. So here Goes.
Why shoot a Baker? Well, as I said in one post to my Intro thread, when I decided to get serious and get a rifle and start playing I wanted to do something different. Coincidentally, PBS was running Sharpe's Rifles so I got curious about the Baker. This was around '97 and it took me two years of e-mails and phone calls to gunmakers across the country before I finally found Jess and TRS. It then took him about a year to build me one and I started shooting it. I'm not too serious about my shooting but I do have fun. I have tried a couple of times to work up an optimal load for it but keep getting side tracked. I have found that it is capable of shooting a heck of a lot better than I can. The folks I shoot with, Green River Mountain Men and Cascade Mountain Men bot shoot at 50yds and 100yds offhand with a limited us of Cross Sticks on certain targets. On a good day I have posted 5 shot groups 3in across and 3-4 shot groups out of 5 overlapping or touching.
When I first moved to this area, it was great fun shooting on new ranges. Each time I stepped up to the line where the shooting was going hot and heavy and torched it off, the line would literally go silent and everyone looked my way and the questions would start. It's nice being different.
A short history. The Baker rifle as we call it was designed by London gunmaker Ezekiel Baker in 1799 in response to a request from the Board of Ordnance for a new Infantry Rifle. His combination of lock, stock, and barrel proved to be the best choice over the likes of Samual Galton, Mr. German, Henry Nock, and Durs Egg. It underwent a series of changes from the initial design (Pattern 1800) in Musket Bore (13/#) and Carbine Bore (20/#). The most significant was the standardization to Carbine Bore and a series of other modifications to create the Pattern 1805. This pattern remained the standard until another series of changes were incorporated for the Pattern 1823. In 1835, after a series of ballistic tests and other evaluations, the Board of Ordnance determined that the percussion ignition was the way to go and although the experimented with converting Bakers to percussion the new winner was the short lived Brunswick rifle (w/belted ball).
My rifle (and I'll try to get some decent pictures to post ) is based on my persona. It can best be described as a 20 year old Pattern 1805 that has been re-stocked, locked, and barreled several times. It currently is fitted with an 1823 lock made at the Tower Armory and a first grade English Walnut stock. At each re-barreling I had its original double rear sight remounted on the new barrel. The last time I had it re-barreled in preparation for coming to the Oregon country in addition to the 1823 Lock, I decided to not have the new barrel browned so it is nice and shiny. I also still have carry from time to time the 1801 Pattern Rifle Sword.
In answer to your other question about a contemporary American military rifle, I've not researched the subject but I would venture a guess that the Harper's Ferry 1803 would be a good start. If that is your bent, go for it. :? :?
Sometimes I think it would have been better if I'd have just bought a Hawken, a set of leathers and called it close enough.
:-({|=
A friendly military match would be a nice break. These mountain men can be get a old (pun intended) :D :D :D :D Besides it might be fun to compare technology from both sides of the ocean without having to form ranks, volley, and charge.
I'm still working on my kit and hoping that be next Rendezvous season I'll have a pair of New Land Pattern Pistols to exercise.
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 01:13:37 AM
I know he is a provincial but, after all it is the 1820s and you would think by now he would have acquired a current flag of the empire. :D
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 01:26:16 AM
If your interested and you can't get Puffer's links to work, google:
Short Barrels and Long Bumpers and 2nd Battalion 95th Rifles in Australia.
Post by: Puffer on November 21, 2005, 01:40:07 AM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
Just checked out Puffer's photo post of his weapons.So this is what I get for asking an English "Aristocrat" to "chime" in. d'oh Actually, Sir Michael is only 1/2 right ( as usual [-X ) the flag is pre 1820, actually changed in 1800. But the Baker load out is war of 1812 not 1820. Would you believe I chose this flag to signify the Birth" of the Baker. ??? ;?help_sign oh, well, the truth is I did not have the "new" one when I "posed the pic. :mozilla_oops:
I know he is a provincial but, after all it is the 1820s and you would think by now he would have acquired a current flag of the empire. :D
Speaking of faw- faws What is your USMC sword doing in your Pic.
Think fast "good buddy"
:off topic: Sorry folks, [-o< [-o< the others of our crowd don't take our advise & join this forum. :D/ All but a couple, are free trappers
Puffer
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 01:54:29 AM
And, our portrayal at Rendezvous is in the mid 20s. Or at least mine its :D/ :D/ :D/
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 02:00:25 AM
Where is everyone?
Surely someone else is interested in this topic or I've managed to upset someone's sensibilities by now. :D :D :D :D I do try well, sort of . :D
Post by: Wyoming Mike on November 21, 2005, 08:01:30 AM
Post by: Old Salt on November 21, 2005, 08:01:32 AM
Thanks for the personal history.
I was unable to get Puffer's links to work so I searched and found this. It looks like the same link with a small difference.
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~rifles95/rifle.htm
Quote
"In the year 1800, the principal gun makers in England were directed by the Honorable Board of Ordnance to produce a specimen, in order to procure the best rifle possible, for the use of a rifle corps (the 95th Regiment) raised by Government. Among those who were selected on this occasion, I was desired to attend: and a committee of field officers was appointed for the purpose of examining, and reporting according to their judgement. There were also many rifles from America and various parts of the Continent produced at the same time. These were all tried at Woolwich; when my barrel, having only one quarter of a turn in the rifle, was approved by the committee."
"It was also remarked, that the barrel was less liable to foul from frequent firing, than the whole, three-quarters, or half-turns in angles of the rifle, which was considered of great advantage to the corps, particularly when engaged, as they would not require so often sponging out as the greater angles would, and yet possess every advantage of the other rifle in point of accuracy and strength of shooting at three hundred yards distance. For all these reasons the committee gave mine a preference, and recommended to the Honorable Board of Ordnance to have their rifles made upon a similar construction." Ezekiel Baker
What kinds of loads are you shooting? What grain/type of bullet, how many grains by volume of powder?
Post by: Ohio Joe on November 21, 2005, 08:28:45 AM
I don't claim to be the smartest when it comes to barrel twist other then I understand the twists we use today; 1 in 48, 1 in 60, 1 in 66, 1 in 70... However, I was puzzled with the Baker Rifles' 1 in 120 twist that was mentioned in this article?
Would a, "1 in 120" twist be on the negative side or opposite twist? Maybe my brain ain't working this early, but wouldn't a, "1 in 100" twist be considered "straight rifling"???
Post by: Hank in WV on November 21, 2005, 08:38:15 AM
Quote from: Would a, "1 in 120" twist be on the negative side or opposite twist? Maybe my brain ain't working this early, but wouldn't a, "1 in 100" twist be considered "straight rifling"???[/quote
The way I understand it, you would have one revolution of the projectile for every 100 inches of forward travel.
Post by: Ohio Joe on November 21, 2005, 08:51:27 AM
Post by: Uncle Russ on November 21, 2005, 10:41:08 AM
Quote from: "Ohio Joe"
O'Kay Hank! I reread that again and that make sense to me now... As I said, the brain ain't working this morning for some reason? Not enough coffee as yet I would expect??? Thanks!
Joe, Don't make me come over there!
:?
Have a "goodern"!
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on November 21, 2005, 11:20:19 AM
Quote from: "Old Salt"
Puffer,
Do you know what American made rifle would have been concurrent with the Baker? I'm thinking something from Harper's Ferry but I might be a bit early on the time line.
Old Salt
Old Salt, Here are 3 rifles that would fit in.
1803 Harper's Ferry
1814 Common Rifle (.54 cal ) made by Derringer & R.Johnson
1817 Common Rifle (.54 cal.) Made by Harper's Ferry, Derringer, R. Johnson,& North & Star This Rifle was issued & used in all Amer. conflicts up to the Civil War. It still was used in the Civil War, But was not the primary issue.
Puffer
Post by: Puffer on November 21, 2005, 11:48:52 AM
Quote from: "Wyoming Mike"
I have been interested in Baker's since I watched the Richard Sharpe series. It's on my list of neat rifles I would like to have. I have seen finished rifles on TOW occasionally with or without the bayonet.
There are 2 other rte.s you can go, other than TOW.
!. The Rifle Shoppe ( Michael's gun ) $2000.+ ( finished ) $900.00 (unfinished )
2. The Discriminating Gen. ($468.) or Loyalist Arms ( $552.)
These Bakers come un-rifled & W/O the touch hole bored.
This is the rte. I went. I got mine from DG ( NOTE _ this Co. is SLOW & Cust. service is POOR (IMO ) rec LA.) I got the gun knowing it would be a "project" :mozilla_tongue: The 2 major areas are:
1. rework lock.
2. re barrel. ( gun is now in WV getting it's new Bbl.
hopefully I will be ready by the start of the season, this spring. [-o< [-o< & that it will be worth the effort.
NOTE - replacement parts are not avail.
Puffer
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 01:22:54 PM
In replay:
Wyoming Mike, Puffers right. If you want a project like he has undertaken you can also get one from Loyalists Arms and Repair from time to time.
BTW its a real bear to shoot with the sword mounted.
Old Salt, I have been shooting 65 grs FFFg with a .610 dia ball and .015-.018 ticking patch. I have also been recently shooting it with Wonder Lube/Bore Butter Patch Lube. I started with a home brew that I used for years because of excessive fouling when I started but switched back not long ago just for curiosity and it seems to work ok. I pretty much shoot a 25 round match without having to wipe the barrel between any shots. And Thanks for posting a good link. It will take you to a wide variety of 95th and Baker rifle sites. [Can you provide me with an explanation of just how to insert a link on a post? I seem to be a bit dense in this regard. The instructions don't seem to work for me.]
Ohio Joe, in regards to barrel twist. My research has turned up a bit of trivia. In the early 19th Cent. the twist of the rifling was not measured in rev/inches e.g. 1:66. It is described as the portion of a single revolution in the length of the barrel e.g. 1/4 twist. The experimental barrels submitted for the competition that Baker won had anywhere from 1/2 to 1 turn and his had a 3/4 turn. This was eventually reduced to 1/4 turn which equates to roughly 1:100 in today's measure since the barrel was bout 30 inches long. (lengths varied a bit)
Hank in WV, dead on.
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 03:27:52 PM
(http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/photos/albums/userpics/10203/normal_Baker%20Rifle%20and%20Rifle%20Sword%20Croped%20small.jpg)
(http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/photos/albums/userpics/10203/normal_Baker%20Rifle%20and%20Rifle%20Sword%20Left%20Side%20Croped%20small.jpg)
(http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/photos/albums/userpics/10203/normal_Baker%20Rifle%20Detail%20small.jpg)
(http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/photos/albums/userpics/10203/normal_Baker%20Rifle%20Detail%20Left%20Side%20small.jpg)
(http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/photos/albums/userpics/10203/normal_Baker%20Rifle%20Tools%20small.jpg)
It worked!!!! =D> =D> =D> I think.
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 03:31:48 PM
By way of explanation for the tools.
On top is a Bullet Mould
From the Left
Late Model Slotted Cleaning Jag
Patch Needle
Ball Puller
Take Down Tool ( double bladed screw driver )
Tommy Bar ( used to rotate the Rammer if necessary )
Post by: Ohio Joe on November 21, 2005, 04:06:31 PM
Thanks for the follow up to Hank In WV's post... I knew my brain wasn't working quite right this morning. You guys cleared it up for me and I appreciate it! :mozilla_smile:
You now need to bring that Baker Rifle to battle in the TMA Monthly Postal Shoots... What a hole that'll make in our targets! :D/
Post by: Old Salt on November 21, 2005, 04:07:48 PM
Good work on posting the photos. They look good, the rifles I mean.
Puffer,
Quote
1803 Harper's Ferry
1814 Common Rifle (.54 cal ) made by Derringer & R.Johnson
1817 Common Rifle (.54 cal.) Made by Harper's Ferry, Derringer, R. Johnson,& North & Star
I should have known but I double checked before posting, the Springfield Armoury would have been in production also. I don't know the model or caliber yet but I'll keep looking.
Thanks for the help
Old Salt
Post by: Sir Michael on November 21, 2005, 06:58:53 PM
A quick check produced this.
http://www.nps.gov/spar/history.html
I didn't find it of much help. Good Luck.
http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=2356
Did you know you can only add URLs and photos at the end of what ever your writing? Oh, forgot check out the second link.
Post by: Voyageur on November 27, 2005, 06:40:28 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on November 27, 2005, 09:42:42 PM
My understanding of Forsythe Rifling is that it is rifling made with wide shallow grooves and narrow lands. The rate of twist was not limited. But then what do I know? :D/
How thick was the barrel of that monster? I get hammered with 110 gr of powder. I've seen some other posts elsewhere that talked about heavy loads like that.
Post by: Puffer on November 28, 2005, 01:10:28 AM
Puffer
Post by: Ohio Joe on November 28, 2005, 11:37:49 PM
A man shot at a 300 yard military target of a soldier and hit him in the right side in the lower lung area... It was also a single soldier target, not several shoulder to shoulder targets to represent an advancing French line... Quite impressive!
Post by: Sir Michael on November 29, 2005, 03:03:29 AM
I just finished watching the same show. If I haven't posted this before here is some information on marksmanship in the 95th with the Baker taken from Bailey's book.
There were two patterns of target: a round wooden target with concentric rings, and a human-figure target painted on canvas. The wooden target was four feet in diameter ... Target practice was to consist of six rounds per man per day ... Recruit firing was used to establish three classes: 1st Class, or bad shots; 2nd Class of tolerably good shots; and 3rd Class ... 1st Class were always exercised at 90 and 140 yards. The 2nd Class "occasionally" at these distances but normally at 200 yards. The 3rd Class were to fire occasionally at 200 yards bu generally at 300 yards.
To achieve a rating other than 1st Class, a 2nd Class marksman was required to put 2 of the 6 rounds in the round target at least two days out of three at 140 yards. A 3rd Class marksman was required to put 4 of 6 shots in the round target two out of three days for two months.
I've left out a lot of the details from the book. It really is a necessity if your interested in the Baker Rifle.
Post by: Ohio Joe on November 29, 2005, 09:18:12 AM
With Christmas coming up I may just have to put this book on my list! This part about the rifle marksmanship training is really interesting, and I'm sure the complete book is also a good read!
Post by: Sir Michael on November 29, 2005, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: "Ohio Joe"
Sir Michael,
With Christmas coming up I may just have to put this book on my list! This part about the rifle marksmanship training is really interesting, and I'm sure the complete book is also a good read!
It is. :mozilla_smile: :mozilla_smile: :mozilla_smile: :mozilla_smile:
Post by: Uncle Russ on December 20, 2005, 01:52:57 PM
[albumimg:3czbnqr8]171[/albumimg:3czbnqr8]
click to enlarge.
To me, it says this puppy will shoot!
It also begs the question of just what my man Puff can do with it.... :rotf
He will have to fill in the details of where they are on that rifle right now...it would appear to me he is going to get a pretty dog gone good shooter.....I will have to shoot that thing when I go up there, I think it is a good looking rifle to go along with the good shooting part, and that makes the honey all that much sweeter.
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on December 20, 2005, 02:17:17 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
I just got this from Puffer.....It is from his Gunsmith who is doing his "new" Baker Rifle......
[albumimg:1l15btms]171[/albumimg:1l15btms]
click to enlarge.
To me, it says this puppy will shoot!
It also begs the question of just what my man Puff can do with it.... :rotf
He will have to fill in the details of where they are on that rifle right now...it would appear to me he is going to get a pretty dog gone good shooter.....I will have to shoot that thing when I go up there, I think it is a good looking rifle to go along with the good shooting part, and that makes the honey all that much sweeter. :? BUT I've already got my excuse list made up. :lol:
As to the next step. - getting it back from WV (about 2 wks.) Then the lock work, browning the Bbl. & refinishing the stock.
You will be kept abreast of the progress, BECUASE there will be a lot of cries for HELP :Doh!
As to YOU shooting it, ONLY if you PROMISE not to kick my rear. (on 2nd thought, knowing you, you'd promise, then kick it anyway & then post it, for all the world to see)
your friend Puffer
Post by: Puffer on March 01, 2006, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: "Puffer"
Quote from: "RussB"He will have to fill in the details of where they are on that rifle right now...it would appear to me he is going to get a pretty dog gone good shooter.....I will have to shoot that thing when I go up there, I think it is a good looking rifle to go along with the good shooting part, and that makes the honey all that much sweeter. :Doh!
your friend Puffer
The work is progressing. I posted on "Gun Building"
Puffer
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 01, 2006, 11:51:22 AM
Maybe we can get together after the Monroe Show, and shoot our targets for the TMA MPS.....That would be neat, I think.
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on March 01, 2006, 07:25:08 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
Yep, I saw it. That's great news Puff!
Maybe we can get together after the Monroe Show, and shoot our targets for the TMA MPS.....That would be neat, I think.
Russ...
Shooting with you would be GREAT & , BUT if you want to win the TMA MPS, We've got some GRMMers that shoot circles around me," when they get "serious" They let me win until I get "cocky" then they "eat my lunch" :hairy By the way, one of the "nice things" about the Baker, it is .62 cal. BIG HOLES.
Your camp mate, Puffer
Post by: Uncle Russ on March 01, 2006, 07:47:42 PM
Quote
But if you do not mind the "basement award' LETs DO IT.
Well, one thing about it....if we won that puppy. we would do it in style!
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on March 01, 2006, 07:55:42 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
QuoteBut if you do not mind the "basement award' LETs DO IT.
Well, one thing about it....if we won that puppy. we would do it in style! :lol sign
Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on March 30, 2006, 09:01:57 PM
Thanks for getting me to the TMA site.
I would like to hear Sir Michael's and your comments regarding the British development of their rifle corps and the Baker rifle. Do you think that the British made these developments because of their experience with the American riflemen in the revolutionary war?
Post by: Puffer on March 30, 2006, 09:23:26 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Puffer
Thanks for getting me to the TMA site.
I would like to hear Sir Michael's and your comments regarding the British development of their rifle corps and the Baker rifle. Do you think that the British made these developments because of their experience with the American riflemen in the revolutionary war?
Cuckpa, GLAD you made it. Go to the Introductions & introduce youself, so everyone can welcome you.
Yes they were influenced by the American riflemen, but They did not have too high of an opinion of them. Actually The Britsh had rifle units prior to 1800 (also in the Rev.war. )I will post some info in the "patriot & Loylist" section
As to The British Rifle Reg.s Sir Michael is the "expert" & I am sure, that when he sees your here, he will chime in. :lol: Also get the book we advised.
Did you find the "Baker pics" Also look in "Gun Building" for my "Indian Project"
Puffer
Post by: Sir Michael on March 31, 2006, 10:20:50 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Puffer
Thanks for getting me to the TMA site.
I would like to hear Sir Michael's and your comments regarding the British development of their rifle corps and the Baker rifle. Do you think that the British made these developments because of their experience with the American riflemen in the revolutionary war?
Hi there chuckpa. I'm not sure I'm the expert that Puffer makes me out to be but here is what I know. Or at least what I think I know.
Starting in 1746 the British Ordnance Board began acquiring rifles. They were issued in small quantities to select men throughout the army from time to time. During the French and Indian War (7 Years War) at most one company from a regiment was equipped with rifles. They tended to be issued for specific operations and then returned to stores for issue the next unit requiring them. This type of use continued through the First American War (The Revolution). The rifles used during this time were essentially German hunting rifles and most were made in Germany.
In 1776 the Board of Ordnance established the Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifle. Something over a 1,000 of these were made and shipped to America. They were used much the same way that earlier rifles had been used ( a few to each regiment depending on operational demands).
Regimental Colonels were also purchasing on their own rifles for issue to their best regimental shots.
The Board of Ordnance also purchased some breach loading rifles designed by Patrick Ferguson but they saw little action and spent most of the war in a warehouse in NY.
After the First American War ended several units in the British Army experimented with rifles and/or equipped some of their best shots with rifles. The British Army also Incorporated several German units into its structure and some of them were equipped with rifles.
In 1797 the 60th Regt raised a 5th Battalion of Germans equipped with German rifles. It was the first all rifle battalion in the British Army. It was trained to fight as light infantry along with several other Line Regiments even though they were equipped with Muskets. The creation of light infantry and the use of rifles was sponsored by General Howe based on his experience in the First American War.
In 1799 the Duke of York established an Corps of Riflemen that was initially organized to train companies of riflemen which when trained were to be returned to their regiments. In 1800, 14 Reg ts sent 30 men each along with officers to be trained as riflemen and equipped with Baker Rifles or more properly the Pattern 1800 Infantry Rifle, this was replaced by the Pattern 1805 and latter by the Pattern 1810. Latter that year necessity forced six of the detachments to be deployed as a single unit. Around this same time the decision was made to keep this Experimental Corps together rather then disperse it after training and it became The Rifle Corp.
In 1802 The Rifle Corps was brought into the line and designated the 95th Regt. Foote (The Rifles).
After the 95th was equipped with Baker rifles the 5/60 Regt was also equipped with them.
During the Napoleonic War the Light Battalions of the Kings German Legion were also equipped with Baker rifles.
During the Peninsula Campaign and after, the 95th, 52nd, and 43rd Reg ts were Brigaded as the Light Division. Although the 52nd and 43rd were equipped with Muskets they were trained in the same manner as riflemen and fought the same way.
All of this is to say that the answer to your question is Yes, the experience in America in both the 7 Years War and the First American War were instrumental in the establishment of the British rifle units. It was also instrumental in their being uniformed in green instead of red.
If you rally want to read more about all this and really get into it, here is a list of references to get you started.
British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 by De Witt Bailey, Ph.D.
Rifleman, Elite Soldiers of the Wars Against Napoloen by Philipp Elliot-Wright (Military Illustrated)
British Rifleman 1797-1815 by Philip Haythornthwaite (Osprey)
The Royal Green Jackets by Christopher Wilkinson-Latham (Osprey)
Post by: chuckpa on April 01, 2006, 07:49:10 PM
Chuck Beasley
Post by: chuckpa on May 14, 2006, 09:02:33 PM
I just got my copy back from a friend of Rifles six years with Wellington's legendary sharpshooters by Mark Urban. I really enjoyed this book. Does anybody have any comments on this book?
Chuck Beasley
Post by: Sir Michael on May 14, 2006, 09:49:47 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Sir Michael
I just got my copy back from a friend of Rifles six years with Wellington's legendary sharpshooters by Mark Urban. I really enjoyed this book. Does anybody have any comments on this book?
Chuck Beasley
I found it a good confirmation of the autobiography of Sir Harry Smith, and books by George Simmons, William Surtees, John Kincade, Benjamin Harris, and Edward Costello. It seems to be well researched and it filled a number of holes.
I'm looking for a complete version of Captain Leach's book "Sketch of The Field Services of The Rifle Brigade"
I've also just acquired copies of "History and Campaigns of the Rifle Brigade 1800-1813 Volume I & II" by Wiloughby Verner and "The History of the Rigle Brigade (The Prince Consort's Own) formerly the 95th" by sir William H. Cope, BART. Both were compiled during the late 19th Century.
Post by: Bigsmoke on May 15, 2006, 01:15:01 AM
Exactly, narrow lands, wide shallow grooves, for example:
.62 - .72 caliber would ideally want to be 8 grooves, 8 lands, the grooves about .006 - .007 deep. The ratio of width of lands vs grooves would want to ideally be 4:1, that is the groove would want to be 4 times as wide as the land. Depending on who is rifling hte barrel, they might not be able to get 4:1 so 3:1 works out OK. Forsythe advocated two different rates of twist, 1:104 and 1:144. Interestingly enough, if I recall this correctly,Forsythe advicated the 144 twist for medium range shooting and the 104 twist was for long range. Or visa versa. Drat, now I'm going to have to read the book over again just to find out what's what. I'll get back to you in a few days on that.
In my 8 bore, I decided to deeped the grooves a bit to .008 - .009, and that has worked out pretty good.
Fun stuff.
Big Smoke
Post by: Bigsmoke on May 16, 2006, 12:49:47 PM
First, Forsythe used a unit of measurement for powder charges called a drachm. That is defined as: Noun 1. drachm - a unit of apothecary weight equal to an eighth of an ounce or to 60 grains
So, on page 72 of my book, at the bottom of the page Forsythe makes up a little table of projectiles to use in a 9 pound rifle, WITHOUT EXCESSIVE RECOIL (emphasis mine) Read on.
Description Gauge Twist Charge Point blank Extreme range
Plain sphere 14 8'8" 3 1/2 70 yards 250 yards
Plain sphere 14 12' 0" 5 95 yards 200 yards
So, 14 gauge we would call .69 caliber, his first charge would be 210 grains and his 2nd charge would be 300 grains. Interestingly enough, the lighter charge in the faster twist barrel would be for the further distance, while the larger charge in the slower twist barrel would be for the shorter range.
He is calling those charges that do not have excessive recoil in a 9 pound rifle. He must have been a macho man!!! Also interesting is that Forsythe's 9 pound rifle was a double, and it probably had a pistol grip stock, as he expressed approval of that design in one place in the book.
Big Smoke
Post by: chuckpa on May 16, 2006, 04:46:37 PM
Post by: chuckpa on May 25, 2006, 05:16:12 PM
Thanks for your help and sharing your project and resources.
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 25, 2006, 07:09:27 PM
That Puffer guy has me all hyped up, and I know little to nothing about the Baker, with the exception of the little bit of information you guys have exchanged here on the forum.
This is a bit off topic, but there was mention in an earlier post about powder being different, and currently available powders may require a different twist, by caliber, to perform as well as many of the older rifles did..........well, that little remark got me old gray matter working.... again.
For whatever reason, over the years, I have many times thought, "now if I just had some of that powder from way back when, then I might see a little different picture with all the front stuffers I have gone through".
Would you elaborate just a bit on what you know, or suspect, about the older powders? I feel quite sure their powders changed as much, or often, as ours have over the past 40 years, so let's pick a time frame of around 1820.
What properties do you think powder may have had from....say, 1820 to 1860 that we don't have today....or vice versa.
Good Luck with yer new Riflegun....(New guns are always fun.)
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on May 25, 2006, 07:35:07 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Well I got my Baker Rifle today from Dixon's. It has a few dings in the stock and some gaps where the tennons come out and I think I can fix them. I'm sending it to Mr.Rayl tomorrow to get a new barrel. He is putting a 1:72 twist in it. He said that they fire the rifle and send a target when they return the Rifle. He said he should have it ready by the end of June.
Thanks for your help and sharing your project and resources.
:rofl
Ed Rayl will send you a target. ( I posted mine a while back.) He does GREAT work Do you have to replace the breech plug, sights etc ??
Did you take any pics ??? If so, please post
If I or anyone else can be of asst. just ask.
Puffer
Post by: Puffer on May 25, 2006, 07:42:46 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
Chuck.....Are you fellers with them Baker Rifles out to start a new trend in Muzzleloading? :rt th
That Puffer guy has me all hyped up, and I know little to nothing about the Baker, with the exception of the little bit of information you guys have exchanged here on the forum.[/i]".
Russ, if you ever SHOW up @ a shoot ( the next one I will be @ is Pacific Prim.) I will let you shoot mine Then you'll want one of your own.
Puffer
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 25, 2006, 08:14:19 PM
Quote
Russ, if you ever SHOW up @ a shoot ( the next one I will be @ is Pacific Prim.) I will let you shoot mine Then you'll want one of your own.
Why ya ol' Goat! I've only missed one where I told ya I was going to try to be there, and then I couldn't make it.....and I let you know ahead of time that I couldn't make it......Uncle Russ ain't going to let ya down, not intentionally.
Get on yer mule and ride over and shoot with me some...exact same distance!........ I know, cause I measured it both ways! :lol: :rofl
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on May 25, 2006, 08:26:00 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
QuoteRuss, if you ever SHOW up @ a shoot ( the next one I will be @ is Pacific Prim.) I will let you shoot mine Then you'll want one of your own.
Why ya ol' Goat! I've only missed one where I told ya I was going to try to be there, and then I couldn't make it.....and I let you know ahead of time that I couldn't make it......Uncle Russ ain't going to let ya down, not intentionally.
Get on yer mule and ride over and shoot with me some...exact same distance!........ I know, cause I measured it both ways! :lol: :rofl
Russ...
Hey, that's not fair. Sir Michael won't be back until PPR ( if then. BUT If I show up @ your door step can I see it ???
Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on May 25, 2006, 09:14:34 PM
I was asking the question to find out if there was anybody out there that new about the old types of black powder. I was talking to Chuck Dixon of Dixons muzzleloading and we were talking about the lenght of barrels and he said well back then ( long barreled buccaner guns) they had mealed powder and they needed a long barrel to burn that type of powder to get velocity. I also read that the powder charges were reduced in our muskets after the Rev. War when the powder improved but I don't know how it improved. It is said that Mr. Dupont started making powder when he came over from France and was upset about the lack of consitent quality powder. I will try to do some research on the subject and see what I can come up with. In the meantime we may have someone on the forum that is knowledgeible in this area.
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 25, 2006, 10:11:39 PM
(Mama Bear has been working my old butt off redoing the lanscape again. All work and no play makes ol' Uncle Russ a dull boy, dontcha know.)
Chuckpa I didn't mean to put ya out bud, I just thought maybe you knew something you could share with us.
Something tells me we have never had as good of quality of Black Powder as we have right now.....something else keeps asking. "are ya sure about tha?"...
Somehow, I just can't imagine stuffing 200gr Swiss, or Goex FFg. or FFFg down the bore of one of my .54, or .58cal. rifles today....It would not be a very efficient load IMHO.
Still yet, I have read where it was not all that uncommon in the old days, especially with the Buffalo Hunters.
Also, The rifles looked at as being the real Buffalo rifles, the 45-70, 45-90, 45-110, 50-70, etc......Is not a fact.
Truth of the matter is, the Buffalo were practically all gone by the time these rifles came on the scene. Taken by the outdated Rocklock, and Caplock that loaded from the front with powder available at the time.......see where I'm going with this?
Russ...
Post by: Puffer on May 25, 2006, 10:35:17 PM
Quote from: "RussB"
Puffer.... I made a little sumpin fer ya, actually a couple of weeks ago, as a matter of fact..... I'll try to get it to the Post Office this week.
(Mama Bear has been working my old butt off redoing the lanscape again. All work and no play makes ol' Uncle Russ a dull boy, dontcha know.)
Russ...
AWWW, youdn't have. On 2nd thought, is it Pink & are you shipping it in a "plain brown wrapper" ??
Your friend, Puffer
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 26, 2006, 11:00:52 AM
Quote
On 2nd thought, is it Pink & are you shipping it in a "plain brown wrapper" ??
It ain't Pink!.....but it is in a "plain brown wrapper", and it ain't sumpin fer yer fashion show, it's fer one of yer rifleguns.
And, I ain't saying nuttin about the Paul Bunyan, not one single word! But that would be a good place to sell a bunch of rifles.
If I see ya, I see ya... Take care, ya ol' goat!Uncle Russ...
Post by: chuckpa on May 26, 2006, 08:45:53 PM
I'm not put out at all, sorry if it sounded that way. You might want to check out the dates of the Buffalo Harvest. The Cartridge Rifles were in full swing and if you get a copy of " The Buffalo Harvest" Frank Mayer and Charles Roth you could check on page 41 where Mr. Mayer discusses the reason that he used English powder instead of American. Maybe this isn't the place for a Buffalo discussion but it does point out that various types of powder was around. I'm going to see if there is more information out there on the subject. I suspect that the rifle twists were predicated on the type of powder that was used at the time. It may explain why a different twist rate has to be used today in the Baker to get it to shoot accurately.
Quote from: "RussB"
Puffer.... I made a little sumpin fer ya, actually a couple of weeks ago, as a matter of fact..... I'll try to get it to the Post Office this week.
(Mama Bear has been working my old butt off redoing the lanscape again. All work and no play makes ol' Uncle Russ a dull boy, dontcha know.)
Chuckpa I didn't mean to put ya out bud, I just thought maybe you knew something you could share with us.
Something tells me we have never had as good of quality of Black Powder as we have right now.....something else keeps asking. "are ya sure about tha?"...
Somehow, I just can't imagine stuffing 200gr Swiss, or Goex FFg. or FFFg down the bore of one of my .54, or .58cal. rifles today....It would not be a very efficient load IMHO.
Still yet, I have read where it was not all that uncommon in the old days, especially with the Buffalo Hunters.
Also, The rifles looked at as being the real Buffalo rifles, the 45-70, 45-90, 45-110, 50-70, etc......Is not a fact.
Truth of the matter is, the Buffalo were practically all gone by the time these rifles came on the scene. Taken by the outdated Rocklock, and Caplock that loaded from the front with powder available at the time.......see where I'm going with this?
Russ...
Post by: Bigsmoke on May 27, 2006, 12:44:02 PM
Quote
Somehow, I just can't imagine stuffing 200gr Swiss, or Goex FFg. or FFFg down the bore of one of my .54, or .58cal. rifles today....It would not be a very efficient load IMHO.
Still yet, I have read where it was not all that uncommon in the old days, especially with the Buffalo Hunters.
Russ,
It would seem to me that you are totally correct on that regard. Your .54 or .58 more than likely is rifled to shoot a PRB with a 70-100 grain load accurately, probably 1:66 or 1:72. With the 200 grain charge of anything in there, your ball would come bouncing out of there like a BB in a sewer pipe. Now, if you were to slow your rifling waaaaaaaaaaaay down, sure you could shoot those charges with relative accuracy. Of course, the next question is, would you want to. About the only American designed rifle that you could comfortably shoot charges like that is the JJ Henry trade rifle or maybe some of the PA schools. Nice design. But a Hawken or a Leman. Good grief, I hate to think of it and I shudder and flinch when I do.
Regarding the ability of the Baker Rifle to shoot accurately with the different rates of twist, I am not sure where to go with that. The only thing I can think of is that the Brits possibly chose to think that the rifle should shoot with a particular powder charge. Period! Well, maybe it needed more or less powder, but they were too inflexible to experiment? Or the wrong ball/patch combo was being used. I don't know, but it sure doesn't make sense to me. Or did the test rifle have a flawed barrel? Or... ???????
Big Smoke
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 27, 2006, 01:49:01 PM
And, It seems all this provides great exercise in my thought processes, while at the same time, I don't seem to get anywhere with it....
There are so many "unanswered" questions....things that are not in print, things that were simply overlooked because at the time it was "a self understandable point"....everybody knew it, so why bother to remark on it....I mean, gun powder was simpy gun powder, what else was there to say about it? All twist for roundball were "slow", some just slower than others, why remark on "why" we chose this, or that twist?
Who's to say the maker of the old rifles knew, or even cared, about something to be known as the "Greenhill formula" for establishing twist rates?.....
Why not just put as slow a twist as possible, that provided the best possible accuracy, with the largest reasonable charge, and call it anything you want to?.....
Did they even dream that 200 years later a group would come along and try to emulate that very same thing?.....
Was the twist of 1:48 actually used by Sam & Jake because it was the best? Was it really the only rifling machine available West of the Mississippi River? Or, was it understood by the "in-crowd" of that shooting era that 1:48 was truly the best, and the machine was actually "ordered" by the Hawken Brothers?...
Do ya see where I'm going here?
We don't really know all these things, but we would like to know, so in the meantime we speculate until we end up with something that appears to be the "most" correct answer.
It is my understanding that Swiss is the closest thing we have to a "Sporting Grade" powder today. And I certainly would not want to shoot 200grs. Swiss in a .58 cal barrel made from the technology available 150 years ago....No matter what the twist!
Is that from the lack of knowledge of the technology available then? .....Probably so.
I apologize to the Baker boys for a couple of these posts, as they are not really in line with the main subject matter. However, it is so easy to tie these thoughts in that comes almost naturally.
Russ...
Post by: Joel/Calgary on May 28, 2006, 01:47:50 AM
Quote from: "bigsmoke"
First, Forsythe used a unit of measurement for powder charges called a drachm. That is defined as: Noun 1. drachm - a unit of apothecary weight equal to an eighth of an ounce or to 60 grains
. . .
Description Gauge Twist Charge Point blank Extreme range
Plain sphere 14 8'8" 3 1/2 70 yards 250 yards
Plain sphere 14 12' 0" 5 95 yards 200 yards
So, 14 gauge we would call .69 caliber, his first charge would be 210 grains and his 2nd charge would be 300 grains.
Ahhh... but if he was actually using the avourdupois dram of 1/16 of an avoirdupois ounce, or 27.34 grains, the charges would be only the much more reasonable 96 grains and 137 grains. Given the inconsistent spelling usage of the time, this is reasonable, especially as it is this "dram" in which most powder charges were specified in the sources that I've read.
On another matter, the only major systematic improvement I have heard about in powder making after the Revolution was an improvement in pressing the "cake" to form denser grains. IIRC, this happened somewhere in the first quarter of the 19th century. You might find this interesting reading:
http://www.thunder-ridge-muzzleloading. ... Knight.htm (http://www.thunder-ridge-muzzleloading.com/Bill%20Knight.htm)
Joel
Post by: chuckpa on May 28, 2006, 08:27:38 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 28, 2006, 09:48:12 PM
I was a member of the BPCR Single Shot Assn. at one time, back about 5 or 6 years ago, and between Bill Knight, and Dick Trenk, (Now the North America Pedersoli Rep.) the two of them can literally flood a person's mind with information.
I realize they are both quite busy, but I would like very much to get both of these old boys in the TMA. They have a tremendous amount of knowledge, and both are quite willing to share.
Russ...
Post by: chuckpa on May 29, 2006, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: "RussB"
If there was ever a S.M.E. (subject matter expert) when it comes to Black Powder, it is indeed Bill Knight....often seen as the Mad Monk.
I was a member of the BPCR Single Shot Assn. at one time, back about 5 or 6 years ago, and between Bill Knight, and Dick Trenk, (Now the North America Pedersoli Rep.) the two of them can literally flood a person's mind with information.
I realize they are both quite busy, but I would like very much to get both of these old boys in the TMA. They have a tremendous amount of knowledge, and both are quite willing to share.
Russ...
Post by: dbm on May 30, 2006, 08:14:26 AM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Sir Michael has pointed out that to get accuracy from a reproduction Baker Rifle you have to use a different twist.
But is a repro Baker that uses a different twist (or rifling?) to the original really a repro Baker? It might look like one but can it truly be regarded as a repro?
With regards to the rifling twist, how much did the military application of the rifle impact on this? Does using a faster twist slow down the loading process (& increase fouling?) which for a rifleman might be an important issue....
Re. discussion of contemporary powder measurement, I have quite a lengthy article on the subject from Bill Curtis who with De Witt Bailey investigated the subject some years ago. I will add it to my web site in the next week and post info. here.
David
Post by: chuckpa on May 31, 2006, 07:50:36 PM
According to "British Military Firearms 1650 -1850" by Howard L. Blackmore, accuracy was the consideration in the tests of the rifling twist. See pages 113 and 117
There is a 95Th rifles reenactment group in England and maybe they might have some ideas on what a repro is.
Quote from: "dbm"
Quote from: "chuckpa"Sir Michael has pointed out that to get accuracy from a reproduction Baker Rifle you have to use a different twist.
But is a repro Baker that uses a different twist (or rifling?) to the original really a repro Baker? It might look like one but can it truly be regarded as a repro?
With regards to the rifling twist, how much did the military application of the rifle impact on this? Does using a faster twist slow down the loading process (& increase fouling?) which for a rifleman might be an important issue....
Re. discussion of contemporary powder measurement, I have quite a lengthy article on the subject from Bill Curtis who with De Witt Bailey investigated the subject some years ago. I will add it to my web site in the next week and post info. here.
David
Post by: chuckpa on May 31, 2006, 09:41:43 PM
You might also want to check on page 184 of "British Military Firearms 1650 -1850. There is a discussion of the balance between rifling and fowling. " The military rifle maker had to strike a happy medium between a twist which would give the greatest accuracy and one which would not foul or strip under battle conditions. It was a problem which seemed to have no definite answer."
I hope this helps.
This sure is a fascinating thing to study. If you come up with any more information from your sources in England please share them with us.
Post by: chuckpa on June 10, 2006, 06:07:45 PM
Post by: Puffer on June 10, 2006, 10:09:42 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Tomorrow night at 9:00pm EST The National Geographic channel they will have a show on Napoleon's last battle. I wonder if it will include some riflemen with Baker Rifles. I thought some of you folks might be interested.
Thanks.
Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on July 14, 2006, 05:59:03 PM
Have you been shooting your Baker? Please share results etc. I expect mine with the new barrel very soon.
Post by: Puffer on July 14, 2006, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Puffer
Have you been shooting your Baker? Please share results etc. I expect mine with the new barrel very soon.
YEP :applaud
Group 3 was off hand ( my excuse is that, that Baker is HEAVY :happy (my partner took out the other 2. In the next round I loaded 100 gr.s :evil: But I missed my 1st shot & the other team took theirs out befor I could get off another shot
I hope to get out this mo. & try working up some loads with FF. I'll let you know the results.
Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on July 17, 2006, 08:28:09 PM
Post by: Puffer on July 17, 2006, 09:44:04 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Thanks for sharing that puffer, those groups are impressive.
Chuck, I'm getting antsy to see you get your "Baker" ( I know your "not the least bit anxious
) I'm sure that once you get that puppy in shape, you will be putting up groups even more impressive.Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on August 06, 2006, 08:00:57 PM
Post by: Squire Robin on August 08, 2006, 06:15:23 AM
Quote from: "dbm"
Quote from: "chuckpa"With regards to the rifling twist, how much did the military application of the rifle impact on this?
I've been reading Baker's book
Baker knew the continentals preferred 3/4 to 1 turn in 3 feet but when he experimented shooting at 300 yards it went awry with the bigger charges. He tried lighter twists and found the nearer to straight the better the results and put it down to "the ball stripped over the top of the rifling"
With one quarter turn in his barrel he found he could, "range further, and more true, than in any previous trial, and with less elevation. In loading, also, the friction is not so great, and the ball is not so impeded in coming out of the barrel by the angle in the barrel more approaching the straight line".
Squire Robin
Post by: chuckpa on August 08, 2006, 09:06:11 PM
That question was asked by David. I'm very anxious to find out what kind of accuracy you can get from your original rifle. I would also like to know what brand of gunpowder you are useing, what granulation and what charge? I loved that vid you so kindly shared with us. I can't tell you how happy I am that someone is shooting an original and can give us some answers.
Post by: Squire Robin on August 09, 2006, 05:06:26 AM
I only have one kind of powder and that's TPPH, I use it in my rifles and shot guns, don't know what the granulation is, it's just TPPH
Not being able to shoot 'til next Sunday I've been playing with my calipers.
The foresight is .295" lower than the back, (measuring to bore center line) which works out to 47.2" of elevation at 100 yards. That would be perfect if the ball averaged 500 fps, but with 70 grains of black I think I'm getting nearer to 750 average, working from the sand splash in the video.
What do you reckon, 55gns or a low aiming mark?
best regards
Squire Robin
Post by: chuckpa on August 09, 2006, 09:22:45 PM
I don't know what to reckon. I would start out by bench resting the rifle at 50yds. and see where she shoots and adjust from there. Then move out to 100yds. Where is that powder made do you know if they have a web site? I do know a man here in pa. that is an expert on black powder and maybe he can tell us something about that powder.
Keep up the great work.
Post by: Squire Robin on August 10, 2006, 07:10:50 AM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Where is that powder made do you know if they have a web site? I do know a man here in pa. that is an expert on black powder and maybe he can tell us something about that powder.
I think it's made by Nobel, as in Dynamite. I also think the PH in TPPH stands for Proof House.
OTOH I could be completely wrong. I do have the box it came in but that's at the other house, I'm in the process of moving.
best regards
Squire Robin
Post by: chuckpa on August 16, 2006, 09:17:22 PM
I have been away for awhile I will try to locate Mr. Knight tomorrow when I stop at the muzzleloading gun store. Please keep all of us informed about your shooting with the original Baker. If i can be of any service to you please call on me.
Post by: Puffer on August 16, 2006, 09:25:54 PM
Puffer
Post by: Squire Robin on August 17, 2006, 06:52:58 AM
http://www.robinhewitt.net/blog/ (http://www.robinhewitt.net/blog/)
Post by: Sir Michael on August 17, 2006, 12:03:49 PM
Quote from: "Squire Robin"
Not a good start, thought I'd start a baker blog to chart my progress, or lack of it :oops:
http://www.robinhewitt.net/blog/ (http://www.robinhewitt.net/blog/)
Interesting Blog read. Something you might want to consider. I use TC No. 13 to clean with and have found that Moose Milk also does a credible job. I put the breach in a small can (#303) half full of solution and use the cleaning jag and patch to pump the solution up and down the barrel and through he touch hole. The I use a 20 ga. bore brush to get into the grooves and a breach brush to clean the face of the breach. Then it is a matter of running dry patches down the bore until it is dry. The trick for me seams to be running dry patches down the bore afterwords until there is absolutely no moisture at all. With my cleaning jag I can force two cleaning patches at a time down the bore and really get into the grooves. I then use Borebutter liberally inside and out to protect the bore. So far no rust just shine.
As for humid weather, my flinters work fine in it for the most part. I have a .36 cal squirrel gun with a patten breach that hates it because the channel fro the breach to the false breach is extremely small (just about the same size as a QTip shaft) condensation there prevents the powder from getting into the breach and hence firing. As for the rest of the condensation, I've found that wiping the pan with a rag just before loading works very well.
I'm wondering just how much powder you're priming with. Also what it is the diameter of your touch hole? Remember that filling the pan will result in the flash having to "fuse" into the touch hole and that takes time.
As for sights, 200 yds? :lol:
Best of luck and keep up the blog, I'll be reading.
Post by: chuckpa on August 17, 2006, 09:52:05 PM
I have you blog marked as one of my favorites. What a great idea for sharing with us. Thanks again
Post by: bluelake on April 01, 2009, 10:01:19 PM
http://www.militaryheritage.com/baker.htm
I didn't seem to see them mentioned.
T
Post by: Sir Michael on April 01, 2009, 11:40:59 PM
The rifle that Squire Robin shoots is an original. Mine is a reproduction.
If you are interested in a Baker made in india I'd suggest either
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/MBR.shtml
or
http://www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com/bakerifle.html
Military Heritage has a developed a really bad reputation for slow and unresponsive customer service. Middlesex takes what they get and from the factory and reworks them to make sure they are usable. Not sure about Loyalist.
Regardless of where you get one of these you should be aware that because of weapons laws they are made smooth barrels and some one like Ed has to replace the smooth barrel with one that is rifled. He can make it with just about any rifling twist you want from the original 1:120 inches to 1:66 (which by the way is the twist mine has) I got the faster twist because the maker told me that he experimented with the original twist and just couldn't get it to perform at the level of accuracy we expect today. However, I've since met another gun maker who has made one with the original twist and it does quiet well. I'm now considering getting a new barrel for mine with the proper twist.
Post by: bluelake on April 02, 2009, 12:05:27 AM
T
Post by: Sir Michael on April 02, 2009, 12:19:55 AM
If you're interested search the forum for "indian baker" there are number of old discussions about them.
Post by: Puffer on April 02, 2009, 12:20:29 AM
Quote from: "bluelake"
Thanks, Sir Michael. It kind of sounded like the Indian Bakers talked about on here. The base price is certainly reasonable; about how much does a barrel change cost? What is a common turnaround time? It might be something I have to wait to get, but it's certainly something I've dreamed about having.
T
GO here to see
redoing an "Indian Baker" http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingasso ... php?t=4426 (http://www.traditionalmuzzleloadingassociation.org/forum/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=4426)
Feel free to contact me ANY TIME
Puffer
Post by: Sir Michael on April 02, 2009, 12:34:04 AM
Post by: bluelake on April 02, 2009, 01:12:07 AM
Post by: Squire Robin on April 08, 2009, 04:22:35 PM
This is how they came in a "stand of arms", the bayonet notch had to be opened out to fit the lug.
Prices for the bayonets were going higher and higher on the bay and this one was extra special so I bid an obscene amount of money in the closing seconds. The seller did well out of me and there was a sudden rush of Baker bayonets for sale when folk saw what some idiot was prepared to pay :lol
Squire Robin
Post by: Sir Michael on April 08, 2009, 05:48:49 PM
Post some pics.
How is shooting going? You haven't posted much on your blog for some time.
Post by: Squire Robin on April 08, 2009, 06:41:45 PM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
Post some pics.
How is shooting going? You haven't posted much on your blog for some time.
No need to post pics, it looks just like the one from Dixie Gun Works except for having Osborn & Gunby cut in to the back :toast
best
Squire Robin
Post by: Sir Michael on April 08, 2009, 07:07:58 PM
Post by: Squire Robin on April 09, 2009, 05:33:39 AM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
Which one do you mean?
Ah, when talking to me you have to make allowances for a fuddled brain, never was good at remembering detail and age hasn't improved things :shock:
Robin
Post by: Sir Michael on April 09, 2009, 01:41:18 PM
Post by: chuckpa on April 29, 2009, 05:18:11 PM
Post by: chuckpa on May 16, 2009, 05:57:49 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on May 16, 2009, 07:40:19 PM
Post by: bluelake on May 16, 2009, 08:46:52 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on May 16, 2009, 08:52:42 PM
Post by: bluelake on May 19, 2009, 09:46:09 AM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
If you really want one I can recommend Jess Melot of TRS. He has a fairly lone lead time but the end product is very good.
I'm sure they are fine pieces and worth every bit that they cost, and I would love to have one, but with TRS's statement that
Quote
Our few of our hand assembled rifles and muskets start out at $1,995.00 and go up from there.I think it's currently a bit rich for my blood. I think I'll have to be satisfied with an Indian Baker. How are they to shoot with the included smoothbore barrel? If I were to buy one, what is a typical turnaround time if I sent it to someone like Ed Rayl to have a rifled barrel put on?
Thanks in advance
Post by: Sir Michael on May 19, 2009, 02:58:46 PM
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/MBR.shtml
The only reason I'd recommend him over Loyalists Arms is blog kept by the owner of MVT and his posts a couple of years ago about the process of setting up a new product line and the effort he went to with the "manufacturers" and the number of prototypes it took to get the product to the level he felt was acceptable. Here is his blog site.
http://mvtco.blogspot.com/
Post by: Puffer on May 19, 2009, 03:36:39 PM
Quote from: "bluelake"
Quote from: "Sir Michael"If I were to buy one, what is a typical turnaround time if I sent it to someone like Ed Rayl to have a rifled barrel put on?
Thanks in advance
As to Ed RAYL turn around ?? at this time. Contact Him. In my case ( a couple of years ago, it was less than a month)
As to the accuracy of his Bbl.s + IMHO VERY GOOD.
Puffer
Post by: bluelake on May 19, 2009, 06:29:52 PM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
If that's the case I'd recommend MVT.
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/MBR.shtml
The only reason I'd recommend him over Loyalists Arms is blog kept by the owner of MVT and his posts a couple of years ago about the process of setting up a new product line and the effort he went to with the "manufacturers" and the number of prototypes it took to get the product to the level he felt was acceptable. Here is his blog site.
http://mvtco.blogspot.com/
Interesting blog. Thanks!
Post by: bluelake on May 19, 2009, 06:32:11 PM
Quote from: "Puffer"
Quote from: "bluelake"If I were to buy one, what is a typical turnaround time if I sent it to someone like Ed Rayl to have a rifled barrel put on?
Thanks in advance
As to Ed RAYL turn around ?? at this time. Contact Him. In my case ( a couple of years ago, it was less than a month)
As to the accuracy of his Bbl.s + IMHO VERY GOOD.
Puffer
I will have to wait until at least the end of the month to contact him, as I won't be back in the States until then (and he only has telephone/snail mail). The turnaround for you was quite good.
Post by: chuckpa on May 27, 2009, 06:07:18 PM
Post by: bluelake on May 27, 2009, 07:35:48 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
I finally got around to sanding the finish of the Baker and staining it walnut with a stain from Old forge. I just put a coat of linseed on and it looks very nice. Whatever that wood is it seems to be very hard and dense. I plan on using the Baker for woods walks and hunting this fall and winter.
INVU :shake
Post by: chuckpa on May 27, 2009, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: "bluelake"
Quote from: "chuckpa"I finally got around to sanding the finish of the Baker and staining it walnut with a stain from Old forge. I just put a coat of linseed on and it looks very nice. Whatever that wood is it seems to be very hard and dense. I plan on using the Baker for woods walks and hunting this fall and winter.
INVU :shake
I hope you like the pictures.
http://cid-0cf72d3fc46cc7bf.skydrive.li ... C_0642.jpg (http://cid-0cf72d3fc46cc7bf.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Guns/IMG%7C_0642.jpg)
http://l4thma.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p ... G_0641.jpg (http://l4thma.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pjHwnnjeH6UbO--y71qNdtqvdFG5CFplEIPbenRZUPmLgdWqsh6S-ShO-A2t1qoZ8L8iTlKcCznc9xQxcV1oYniBuXpc4W1VK/IMG_0641.jpg)
Post by: bluelake on May 27, 2009, 10:57:36 PM
T
Post by: Puffer on May 28, 2009, 10:34:43 AM
Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on May 28, 2009, 04:25:35 PM
That rifle just out shoots me.
Post by: robertdeans72 on May 28, 2009, 07:42:50 PM
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8463.jpg)
Made the sight picture much more fine and easier to use. The only thing is it shoots way high now.... more on that later. I started with 60 grains FFg and made leaps or 5 gr up to 90 shooting five round groups. Then I did the same using a 20 gauge lubed fibre wad under the patched ball and this made the group considerably higher as a result of the greater pressure created moving more mass out the barrel I guess. The rifle defiantly felt like it was kicking just a bit differently and its report had a much sharper element to it. The wad idea came around when I was using thinner patch material that was burning out with greater loads and I found that it had the added benefit of lubing and cleaning the barrel to the point of being able to fire 50 or so rounds in a row with little or no fouling (except in the lock area of course). I found the best group of the day at 50 metres was 2 1/2 inches measured centre to centre with 3" group readily reproduced.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8313.jpg)
This was done with 90 grs FFg with no wad. So not amazing by any modern standards but I took this as an acceptable standard to zero for deflection and brought the groups into line with a couple of taps of the foresight. Out to 100. The groups did not drop as significantly as I was expecting (presumably due to the 90 gr charge...) and all were about the same 8" or so high..... (ultimately I will have to lower the rearsight to bring the groups down when the final zero and load confirmation take place.....soon) I shot groups that measured 6" to 6 1/2".
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8458.jpg)
This would seem to correspond with simple math saying the 3" at 50m will be 6" at 100m, eh? So to take that a step further say out to 200 I could expect that I could shoot a 12" group at 200m and an 18" group at 300m...... And when I compare that to the references it all seems to match up...... I should certainly be able to hit a full size figure target at 200 and with out too much of a stretch hit a 15" circle at 300. Well this is all very exciting to me, what with being able to reproduce the kind of accuracy expected of a marksman of the 95th or 60th..... No its not modern "ass out of a gnat" accuracy but it is certainly up there with the early 19th century's version of it......... What a great day.....
Thanks,
Rob
Post by: chuckpa on May 28, 2009, 08:32:14 PM
Thank you for giving us that wonderful report I will look forward to reading more of them.
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 01, 2009, 12:23:34 AM
Rob
Post by: chuckpa on June 02, 2009, 05:28:54 PM
This tread is a running cometary on various Baker rifles owned by members of this forum. My Baker is made in India and imported by Middlesex Trading Village. It is my understanding that these rifles are made the old fashion way by forging etc. They are imported into this country with smooth bore barrels. I had this barrel replaced with a rifled barrel form Ed Reyhl in West Virgina. I think he put a 1:77 twist in the barrel but I may be mistaken. Puffer can verify the twist. The rifle out shoots me, I intend to use it for hunting deer and in Woods Walks. Buy one and join the club.
Post by: Sir Michael on June 02, 2009, 07:49:58 PM
How does you Baker fit? The drop on Puffer's is less than what Jess put on mine and that makes his a bear to shoot. It's hard to get a good sight picture with your cheek bone pressed hard against the comb.
Post by: Squire Robin on June 02, 2009, 08:01:10 PM
Quote from: "Ohio Joe"
wouldn't a, "1 in 100" twist be considered "straight rifling"???
For the government test the rifle barrels were set solid in mortar, tightest group to get the contract.
Baker made a lot of barrels with different lengths and rates. He found that short was as good as long, and the closer he got to straight the closer it shot.
Perhaps the specified charge tended to strip in the rifling, anyways, Baker's barrel shot tightest and he won.
Robin
Post by: Puffer on June 02, 2009, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Rob
Thank you for giving us that wonderful report I will look forward to reading more of them.
[size=150]DITTO< DITTO !![/size]
Puffer
Post by: Puffer on June 02, 2009, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: "Puffer"
Quote from: "chuckpa"Rob
Thank you for giving us that wonderful report I will look forward to reading more of them.
[size=150]DITTO< DITTO !![/size]
Puffer
Hey ROBIN, how is YOUR "experiments" coming ??
Puffer
Post by: chuckpa on June 02, 2009, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
Chuck,
How does you Baker fit? The drop on Puffer's is less than what Jess put on mine and that makes his a bear to shoot. It's hard to get a good sight picture with your cheek bone pressed hard against the comb.
My Baker really fits me. I do use a modern stance when shooting the Baker as compared to shooting a PA long Rifle. I do not make a spot weld with my thumb and cheek as I was trained to do in the service but I hold my head as far back on the stock as I can. I am about Puffers size and weight, 6' 180 lbs. I hope that helps.
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 02, 2009, 10:04:38 PM
I am going for a shoot on Friday or Monday and will do my best to stretch things out to 200m. I have a steel plate of about 45" high by 24" wide that should make for a perfect 200m target....What a great sound too! Camera will be in hand for sure! Here are a few older ones...
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/TrimmedBaker.jpg)(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/misc149_0001.jpg)
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/misc446.jpg)
Baker shooters seem to be quite a rare breed and its always interesting to hear from everybody here. Shoot lots and take pictures, eh?...Thanks fellas.
Rob
Post by: bluelake on June 03, 2009, 02:34:05 AM
Post by: chuckpa on June 03, 2009, 06:22:52 AM
Post by: bluelake on June 03, 2009, 09:57:37 PM
Quote from: "bluelake"
Has anyone here shot the Baker with the included smoothbore barrel? I'm just wondering how it performs "out of the box".
Anybody?
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 04, 2009, 01:39:43 AM
Rob
Post by: Puffer on June 04, 2009, 10:07:11 AM
Quote from: "robertdeans72"
Nope, I sent mine, after initial inspection, in the same box, different address, to Ed Rayl the next day....... the one that came with it looked like a piece of plumbing....I understand that the ones that come from Loyalist and Middlesex are much better.....
Rob
DITTO< DITTO !!!
Puffer
Post by: Squire Robin on June 04, 2009, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: "robertdeans72"
I too would be interested in hearing of your progress with you Baker, Robin. As I recall, yours is an East India Pattern Baker.. Does it have rifling of 1:120?
Hi Rob
I've been distracted playing with an American military flint rifle, possibly made in the same year as my Baker. Not so pretty, but the sights are set to 100 yards and the 16 micro grooves actually put the ball exactly where I want it to go. This is quite refreshing after the Baker
The Baker has an EIC lion on the stock and a military inspection stamp on the lock. The rifling is round about 1:120, Baker defines it as "quarter turn" and that is what it is.
best
Squire Robin
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 05, 2009, 10:36:14 PM
Regards,
Rob
Post by: Squire Robin on June 09, 2009, 07:18:29 AM
Quote from: "robertdeans72"
Was it frustration that led you to stop experimenting?
Not really, I just moved on to other things. Still my favorite rifle, still shoot it, just don't write about it, nothing new to tell.
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 11, 2009, 02:19:18 AM
Started off with a warm up at 100m. I decided to try the 90gr load with a fibre wad lubed with shortening to see if it affected things at all. I was hoping for it not to as with the wad the barrel has next to no fouling and the tight ball/patch combo slides down ever so smoothly....
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8002.jpg)
I decided to shoot 10 rounds to get a really good impression of where the rifle was shooting. I then shot another 10 rounds with just the patch.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8003.jpg)
Things seemed to tighten up ever so much but the jury is still out I say. After a quick wipe of the bore (after 20 rounds) with a wet cleaning patch and then dry, I tapped the sights over a wee bit and shot a 5 round group for confirmation...
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8005.jpg)
Things moved over just the right amount! Now, my rear sight is still high, resulting in the high grouping and I wanted to leave it high for the shoot at 200 to see if the rounds would drop the difference. So, back I went to 200m and set up. The flint was exhibiting some stubborn characteristics by this time and wasn't knapping very well with the resultant crappy sparks..... Just as I started in at 200 I was hit with a rash of misfires and hang fires, all of which frustrated me and led me to bin that one for new one..... As you might expect, the ignition that I'm accustomed to came back and the shooting improved. I started with the same sight picture as at 100m to see if it would drop some 8 or so inches (of course, I was expecting it to) Well, they were all WAY low.... I had to then figure out what kind of sight picture to use. I ended up with a sort of "full sight with base" type picture with the foresight post completely visible above the rear sight notch. That brought the rounds up enough though not perfectly.....
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8016.jpg)
The initial rounds (with the bad flint, hang fires and misfires AND a bore that should have been wiped....) all hit below the target using the 100m sight picture and were rather wildly spread out... After wiping the bore and changing the flint I shot the remaining rounds with much more confidence that they were going where I expected them to go. Incidentally, the measurement from the far left to right is some 26" and the majority (to the right of the tape) lie within 12" of each other......
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8007.jpg)
The lock after a work out....And me (thats the target at 200m behind me!)
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/8011.jpg)
A great day and whats more there is still a lot of shooting left to do to get this 200 thing nailed down!
Cheers,
Rob
Post by: butterchurn on June 12, 2009, 12:41:48 AM
DOes anyone know what Bakers they used in filming the Sharpes Rifles series. I mean where did they get them?
Post by: bluelake on June 12, 2009, 04:52:00 AM
Quote from: "butterchurn"
Wonderful photos!
DOes anyone know what Bakers they used in filming the Sharpes Rifles series. I mean where did they get them?
Evidently they are the same Indian-made Bakers several people here have. At least two or three companies carry them, such as Military Heritage and Middlesex Trading Village. There are several mentions about them earlier in this thread.
Post by: wwpete52 on June 12, 2009, 01:46:04 PM
Post by: Loyalist Dave on June 12, 2009, 04:19:12 PM
Also reference the smooth barrels, some of them were reported as arriving with crimped, not threaded, breech plugs, from one distributor. They were not sold for conversion to firing, although one could easily have an American made barrel installed and get a good working rifle.
LD
Post by: Uncle Russ on June 12, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
Quote
A great day and whats more there is still a lot of shooting left to do to get this 200 thing nailed down!
Rob, nothing absolute on what I am saying, but from what I have seen over the years, including my own feeble attempts at 125 & 150yd with one of my smoothies, I would say that the last "group" of roughly 5~6 inches at 200M, while not being a record that I'm aware of, would certainly rate right up there with very best.
It appears, to this ol'boy, that you may very well already have the "200 thing nailed down"
Very good!
Uncle Russ...
Post by: bluelake on June 12, 2009, 06:14:05 PM
Quote from: "Loyalist Dave"
"The same Indian made Bakers...," well they may be all made in India, but not necessarily from the same maker or parts manufacturer. I was told that the Sharpe's Rifles Bakers came from the Discriminating General, and I don't think that Middlesex Village gets theirs from the same maker as DG. I have been told that Loyalist Arms gets their stuff from a different parts maker than DG.
LD
The one company that definitely claimed to use the same makers was Military Heritage (http://www.militaryheritage.com/baker.htm); others I went by what I heard.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on June 12, 2009, 10:49:01 PM
Post by: butterchurn on June 12, 2009, 11:01:07 PM
Post by: MedicineSoldier on June 14, 2009, 12:38:29 AM
"I don't know much about these other than that they were made by the company that supplied them for the "Sharpe's Rifles" series on PBS"
Post by: chuckpa on June 15, 2009, 06:13:28 PM
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 15, 2009, 08:21:21 PM
Say Chuck, yours has 1-72 rifling? Any pictures of your shoot? Pics of your rifle? How was the load work up or have you already done that... Accuracy?
Thanks,
Rob
Post by: butterchurn on June 15, 2009, 11:04:36 PM
Post by: Squire Robin on June 16, 2009, 09:12:07 AM
Quote from: "butterchurn"
DOes anyone know what Bakers they used in filming the Sharpes Rifles series. I mean where did they get them?
No idea but Sgt Pat's volley gun was going round the trade shows over here with an eye-watering price tag.
Fun to pick up but looked a bit wrong in the barrel department
Post by: bluelake on June 16, 2009, 10:05:17 AM
Quote from: "Squire Robin"
Quote from: "butterchurn"DOes anyone know what Bakers they used in filming the Sharpes Rifles series. I mean where did they get them?
No idea but Sgt Pat's volley gun was going round the trade shows over here with an eye-watering price tag.
Fun to pick up but looked a bit wrong in the barrel department
http://www.southessex.co.uk/weapons/nock.htm
Post by: butterchurn on June 16, 2009, 12:34:06 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on June 16, 2009, 03:12:12 PM
Post by: butterchurn on June 16, 2009, 11:17:00 PM
"The Bakers don’t have a set trigger, but they do have a yager-style trigger where it lays backwards at about a 45 degree angle. They have a standard two-notch tumbler with no fly, so if you wanted to slick one up, it would be an easy job.
As they come, they have smoothbore barrels, but Colerain makes a .62 cal rifled barrel for the Bakers that can be fitted. We get them (the rifled barrels) from Track of the Wolf and the gun can be ordered with the upgraded barrel. We fabricate a breechplug out of 4130 round stock, reuse the original sights and bayonet bar, then brown the new barrel and breech assembly. The gun with Colerain barrel sells for $695 plus shipping, but it is still the cheapest way to get an actual rifled Baker as opposed to the smoothbore.
Thanks,
Pete"
I'm going this route I think. The Colerain barrels have a 1 and 66 twist and are 30 inches long. The barreel won't be a Rayl, but Colerains are good barrels.
Post by: Squire Robin on June 17, 2009, 10:01:42 AM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
How so Robin?
Hi SM
Presume you mean how so "looked a bit wrong in the barrel department"?
You could see down between them to brazed in plates holding it all together. I have a notion that volley gun barrels should be tightly spaced and look like one lump.
OTOH I have never laid mitts on an original so I could be completely wrong
Robin
Post by: Sir Michael on June 17, 2009, 01:18:18 PM
Post by: butterchurn on June 17, 2009, 10:55:18 PM
Looks like Puffer's tutorial of his rework of the Baker disappeared!?
Post by: bluelake on June 18, 2009, 01:20:23 AM
Post by: chuckpa on June 18, 2009, 08:48:20 AM
You may have to make a new trigger. My trigger was made out of thin metal and the hole for the trigger pin was to large which caused a wobble.
It is really not a very had project. I may be in MN in the Brainerd area this fall in case you might need a hand.
Post by: butterchurn on June 18, 2009, 11:14:59 AM
Post by: Riley/MN on June 18, 2009, 11:19:12 AM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
I may be in MN in the Brainerd area this fall in case you might need a hand.
Don't mean to be a buttinski, but make sure you let us know if you are doin that Chuck. I grew up Just south of Brainerd "a bit"...
Post by: chuckpa on June 18, 2009, 01:12:47 PM
Post by: robertdeans72 on June 27, 2009, 10:51:35 PM
Another shoot this weekend! All at 200m. Target was 30"x40" with an 8" aiming mark. I fired a couple of warming rounds before I started to group seriously.... All in all a good day and the first time I did everything at 200. Next time I think I'll go for the final sight adjustment (for range) regarding the rear sight to bring everything together at 100 and then I'll have to figure out someway to make the sight work at 200. For now, I'm using a "full sight" picture.... Not conducive to the easiest accuracy as it requires a lot a of concentration and double checking before firing.....
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/9007.jpg)
I shot this one with a sling. Seemed to pull the group off to the right!
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b166/RobDeans/9010.jpg)
This one without a sling. Much better.
Cheers,
Rob
Post by: chuckpa on June 29, 2009, 08:07:11 PM
Post by: chuckpa on June 30, 2009, 09:11:15 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on June 30, 2009, 10:54:06 PM
Post by: chuckpa on July 01, 2009, 05:28:49 PM
Post by: robertdeans72 on July 01, 2009, 06:08:13 PM
Rob
Post by: chuckpa on July 01, 2009, 09:34:42 PM
My wife makes uniforms so I have access to all kinds of ticking etc. She washes it several times to take the sizing out of it. I will let you know how the patching works and if you would like some I would be happy to send some to you.
Post by: robertdeans72 on July 03, 2009, 05:56:46 PM
Rob
Post by: chuckpa on July 06, 2009, 09:18:19 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on July 07, 2009, 04:19:51 PM
Post by: chuckpa on July 08, 2009, 05:01:41 PM
It was 25yds. at a offhand standard NMLA target.
Post by: chuckpa on July 08, 2009, 09:35:02 PM
Post by: MedicineSoldier on July 13, 2009, 02:56:37 PM
Medicine Soldier
Post by: chuckpa on July 19, 2009, 08:22:07 PM
I had some misfire problems and then got a case of the flinches but what the heck it was a great day and I got to meet Old Salt from the forum who is a wonderful guy. I did manage to fire a X at 100 yds which I showed to Old Salt but after that on my score target it was down hill. The more I use that rifle the more I am impressed with it
Post by: Old Salt on July 19, 2009, 09:50:46 PM
Leo
Post by: bluelake on September 19, 2009, 10:10:55 AM
Post by: Riley/MN on September 19, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
Post by: bluelake on September 19, 2009, 10:52:15 AM
As my dad used to say, "Didn't have this problem before bows and arrows" (or flintlocks, to keep on topic).
Post by: Sir Michael on September 20, 2009, 11:25:04 AM
Post by: bluelake on October 27, 2009, 09:04:09 PM
Quote from: "butterchurn"
I contacted MVTC and Pete answered my email. Here is his response about the Bakers you all might be interested in.
"The gun with Colerain barrel sells for $695 plus shipping, but it is still the cheapest way to get an actual rifled Baker as opposed to the smoothbore."
I contacted Pete at MVTC and he directed me to Kathy, from whom I found out about current pricing. Here is her reply:
Quote
The upgraded rifled barrel is actually $795.00 Changing over the sights, bayonet attachment, browning, stamps, etc., all proved to take a bit longer than was hoped.
Post by: chuckpa on October 31, 2009, 05:54:37 PM
That sounds like a good deal to me, are you going to order one?
Post by: bluelake on October 31, 2009, 08:23:00 PM
Quote from: "chuckpa"
Bluelake
That sounds like a good deal to me, are you going to order one?
It's very likely, although I'm not sure if I will go with the $795 route or buy the standard smoothie version and send it to Ed Rayl to have it done. The problem with the latter is mainly logistical; as I'm in Korea, and my folks' place is in Michigan, I would have to ask my elder sister to do the receiving and reshipping to Ed (I'd like to have the rifle ready to make smoke and noise when I visit next summer, so things would have to get done ahead of time). I know she would happily do it, but I've been asking her for many favors and I am reluctant to keep asking. The nice thing about MVT's offer is everything is done there for one price (and one shipment). However, Pete said they sometimes have trouble getting the correct Colerain barrel (and the Bakers are often not in stock); the nice things about Ed's barrels are they come from him and you can get whatever twist you want. Ah, decisions, decisions...
Post by: Puffer on October 31, 2009, 09:29:06 PM
Puffer
Post by: bluelake on October 31, 2009, 11:46:03 PM
Quote from: "Puffer"
IMHO, get the ED Rayl BBL
Puffer
Yeah, I'm kind of leaning that way.
Post by: Squire Robin on November 05, 2009, 07:09:33 AM
Quote from: "Old Salt"
But after meeting Chuck and handling his Baker I can see the appeal they present.
Hi Leo
Weird isn't it. I couldn't see the appeal until I shot one when it suddenly became a must have.
Cost me plenty due to the bizzarre UK gun laws. I either had to buy an original or be forever trying to justify keeping a repro
best regards
Squire Robin
Post by: butterchurn on November 12, 2009, 11:49:13 AM
Post by: Puffer on November 12, 2009, 12:59:52 PM
Quote from: "butterchurn"
I just received a notive from MVTC that they have shipped my Baker! Finally after months of waiting! They installed a colerain barrel and had to order the appropriate stamps to put on the barrel. Should be here on Friday!:hairy
When you get it PLEASE post pix, a review & a range report :hey-hey
Puffer
Post by: butterchurn on November 13, 2009, 11:29:24 PM
Post by: Puffer on November 13, 2009, 11:53:00 PM
Quote from: "butterchurn"
I received my Baker! I will post photos in the morning. My first impressions are positive. The Colerain barrel is very nice, the lock has the crone stamp a bit lightly struck. The lock is stiff. Functions ok but needs a strong hand to cock it. Trigger pull weight is about 2 million pounds, give or take. The sword bayonet that came with it is all rusty. Fit and finish is pretty good. I'm happy with it overall. Now I need to find time to get it too the range!
:happy
Before you go to the range, Hone/polish all surfaces of the lock inside & out ( incl. springs) ) LOOK for areas that are "rubbing or "scratching"
Also contact Pete about the bayonet
Puffer.
Post by: bluelake on November 14, 2009, 01:24:22 AM
Post by: butterchurn on November 14, 2009, 10:30:58 PM
[albumimg:315y9tmf]4496[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4495[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4494[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4493[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4492[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4491[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4490[/albumimg:315y9tmf] [albumimg:315y9tmf]4489[/albumimg:315y9tmf]
I am sorry the lighting isn't better in some of the photos.
Post by: BEAVERMAN on November 14, 2009, 10:57:28 PM
Post by: butterchurn on November 14, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on November 14, 2009, 11:49:52 PM
[albumimg:1ruvma64]2154[/albumimg:1ruvma64]
Here is a shot of the tools I carry. I consider the original designs less useful than modern versions except for the turnscrew. However, modern tools require an adapter to go from the 12-24 thread of the rammer to the 10-32 of today.
[albumimg:1ruvma64]1595[/albumimg:1ruvma64]
Post by: butterchurn on November 15, 2009, 10:05:37 PM
Post by: bluelake on November 15, 2009, 11:46:12 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on November 16, 2009, 01:44:48 PM
Post by: hawkeye on November 17, 2009, 08:41:13 AM
Post by: chuckpa on November 17, 2009, 05:49:03 PM
Thank you very much for the load information youu gave me of using 65 grains of fffg I tried it out and I really like it.
Chuck Beasley
Post by: Sir Michael on November 18, 2009, 09:53:44 PM
Post by: bluelake on November 18, 2009, 10:32:20 PM
7/8" flint--check.
65gr. FFFG (to start out with)--check.
Now, how about the ball and patch? It seems like the most commonly available is .600, but I've seen others say .610 is best. Most molds seem to be .600, also, but are either out of stock or are relatively quite expensive ($19 vs. $60). It seems like there would be a bit of slop if using .600 and a .018 patch (which would probably go away after a couple of shots I'm guessing). What is recommended? Also, is there a good source for .610 balls and/or mold? I've looked at Track of the Wolf, Midwest, and Dixie...
Post by: hawkeye on November 19, 2009, 07:49:18 AM
Post by: bluelake on November 19, 2009, 08:33:05 AM
Post by: hawkeye on November 19, 2009, 08:40:17 AM
Quote from: "bluelake"
Where did you get your .610s?
Track of the Wolf. I really need to get a mould though. I have quite a bit of lead and it would be much cheaper in the long run to cast my own.
Post by: bluelake on November 19, 2009, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: "hawkeye"
I really need to get a mould though. I have quite a bit of lead and it would be much cheaper in the long run to cast my own.
I hear ya there, but, as you said, they are pricey.
Post by: Sir Michael on November 19, 2009, 10:38:02 AM
Casting is the only way to go.
Post by: Puffer on November 19, 2009, 11:19:35 AM
Quote from: "Sir Michael"
Mine takes a 7/8 Fuller English Flint. Puffer what size does yours use? I don't remember.
The SAME
Puffer
Post by: butterchurn on November 19, 2009, 04:51:30 PM
Post by: bluelake on November 19, 2009, 05:38:48 PM
Quote from: "butterchurn"
My bore is .611 as measureed by MVTC.
That makes a difference...
Post by: hawkeye on November 19, 2009, 05:49:53 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on November 19, 2009, 08:55:07 PM