Traditional Muzzleloading Association

Shooting Traditional Firearms and Weapons => General Interest => Topic started by: Dragoon on July 28, 2008, 07:16:23 PM

Title: 100 Yards and counting
Post by: Dragoon on July 28, 2008, 07:16:23 PM: I attended the Sequim rondy this weekend and had a great time! I thought I would share and experience in dialing in my .50 Cal Lyman Plains Rifle.

We had a 100 yard paper target of a bear. I had shot my gun in that morning at 25 yards about as well as I have ever had it dialed in. So, I loaded up and fired my 5 rounds. they hit the bear's feet, about a foot or more below the center of mass. My aiming point was his back.

So, when an opportunity came to help a friend who is not very ambulatory take his gun and stuff to the range I helped and took mine too. After setting him up I loaded up with 100 grains, vs. my usual 65 grains, and shot 5 rounds at a spare target, firing with the top of the front post at the top of his back.

When I went up to get his target all five of my rounds had missed. OK, I knew they had not gone below the target, right? So, I loaded up with 100 grains again and fired at his feet. I have never seen such a perfect hole in a piece of paper, and it was exactly in the center of the bear's body, a kill shot, about 12 inches above the point of aim (I have a picture of the hole in the target and my friend as a witness!). At least now I know where the gun shoots at at 100 yards.

My thought is that with 100 grains at 100 yards it is still climbing? Any thought? It was an interesting experiment in shooting.
Title:
Post by: Lady of the Woods on July 28, 2008, 07:27:25 PM: One question that pops into my mind is: what was the landscape?hilly? flat?

I have a TERRIBLE time remembering if I'm supposed to adjust up or down when shooting up hill or down hill and at which range, that's why I ask...
Title: Ignore me
Post by: Dragoon on July 28, 2008, 08:24:45 PM: Just talked with Beaverman... should have adjusted my sight to put round on target at 100... was not dialed in enough at 25... well, live and learn.
Title:
Post by: FG1 on July 28, 2008, 10:11:00 PM: Z , whether shooting up hill or down hill its the same . You will impact high if you dont hold lower.
I know it dont sound right but it is
Title:
Post by: mike rumping on July 28, 2008, 10:22:12 PM: M'Lady, you're thinking shooting a bow there,
a rifle gun won't make any difference.
Mike
Title:
Post by: Stryker on September 14, 2008, 09:10:04 AM: Quote from: "mike rumping"
M'Lady, you're thinking shooting a bow there,
a rifle gun won't make any difference.
Mike

Mike
I was taught, growing up, there was a difference. My PMI in the Marines reinforced it. But there are a number of variable involved. I really doesn't come into play until your are shooting up/down at angle more the 30-40 degrees. But past that, you want to aim low regardless if it's up or down.

To give you a modern example, if you are shooting, up or down, at a 40 degree angle and the line of sight range is 400 yards to the target, the horizontal range is only 335 yards. 335 yards is what you want to aim at.

I'venever reall messed around with the angles with my flinter. I may have to try sometime. I would suspect that under 100 yards, there's probably not a lot of compensating unless the angle was greater than 40 degrees.
Title:
Post by: sse on September 14, 2008, 10:01:33 AM: I love these external ballistics concepts, especially regarding shooting a roundball, where I think the controversy fades a little closer to art than science.

There is an overriding principle, mentioned by Jeff Cooper, in his book The Art of the Rifle, which he calls the morning glory effect. Basically, this is the is the idea that past certain threshholds, for instance extreme distance where centerfire is concerned, other factors trump the good ballistics and shooting form we generally strive for in placing a good shot. I think the factors are enlarged by comparison when shooting a black powder rifle. So, the bottom line for me is that in our B/P shooting efforts, shooting at different angles on a grade probably doesn't call for much of and adjustment, if any...
Title:
Post by: Captchee on September 14, 2008, 10:42:16 AM: well i have found through the years it does apply .
when im shooting i use the very same princaples that i use with my bow , jut to a lesser amount .

as to sighting in . I sight in at 100 yards . then i make my adjustments for closer ranges .
100 yards with a roundball im dead on . off cross sticks she holds a good 3 inch or less group .
at 25 yards im 5 inches high .
i also often shoot long Gong targets and have taken those events at over 300 Yards . longest one was 345 lazered .
the target is a 36x36 steel target . my point of aim is high but the ball still falls on target

OHHH my powder charge is 80 grains of 3F in a 54 cal .

now thats not to say you shoud hunt at that distance but that you can hit at that distance once you learn your rifle .
Title:
Post by: sse on September 14, 2008, 03:28:03 PM: I think conceiving of gravity in terms of wind, when attempting to make a shot with a firearm with an effective range of 100 yards or less, with a projectile with a low ballistic coefficient and low velocity, though roughly analogous, is dangerous. The effects of a crosswind on a rb are so dramatic, any similarity is remote.

Quote
Anyway... if you are shooting down at 25-30 degrees you are going to get about 1/3 less drop then you would on your rifle range back home.
This would be an extreme angle, plus, just like any other shot, the distance to the target is a much greater factor.

Even with a rb low velocity, since the muzzle to target distance is so short the effect of gravity on the rb...? I'm not from Missouri, but...to bad I'm a flatlander or I could run my own tests fo the fun of it. Failing that, i gotta defer to you mountain men and sit here in disbelief... :| 8)
Title:
Post by: Captchee on September 14, 2008, 05:45:19 PM: i would disagree SSE .
thats one of the things i find wrong with ballistic computers concerning the RB . I simply do not get the drop they suggest
A cross wind also only plays a part at greater distance ie 75 yards or so . But that also depends on your original charge thus the velocity that the ball leaves the muzzle . The faster the velocities the lest wind initially plays a great part .

As to effective range . That range is based on the intended target . On big game we consider that effective range to generally be below 100 yards . But that same load combination on a human target would still be effective well past 300 yards
Title:
Post by: Wyoming Mike on September 15, 2008, 09:29:21 AM: I do a little different than some do. I find the best load at 50 yards then sight the rifle in. I then up the load until I'm shooting dead on at 100 yards. I may need to adjust the 100 yard load to tighten it up a little. It may come out to an inch or two high or low but it is still in the money at that range. I use that load for competition and hunting.

For my .50s the short range load runs from 40 to 50 grains depending on the rifle. The 100 yard load will run between 65 to 75 grains depending. A 75 grain load with a soft lead ball will go all the way though the chest of a deer or antelope at 75 yards.
Title:
Post by: tg on September 16, 2008, 07:32:59 PM: It is a fact that when you use the right angle triangle the hypotenuse is the line of sight and shot to the target from bottom to top at tha angle, the horzontal line (bottom)is tha actuall distance gravity has to work on rhe ball and is always less distance than the hyoptenuse, draw it out it will become evident if you draw the Deer at the top and the shooter on the bottom.
Title:
Post by: Captchee on September 16, 2008, 08:02:46 PM: mathematically a bumble bee cannot fly .
Mathematically if two rifles, one shooting 3500fps and another at 2300 fps , both fired horizontally 12 ft off the ground at the very same time , while at the same time dropping an object from that height , all three would reach the ground at the same time and neither of those bullets would reach a distance = to its velocity .

Personally , I prefer experience of practical application . To often the mathematics of an equation doesn’t match the application ,when it comes to muzzleloading ballistics.
.
So if you just fired a PRB and got an effect that is different them the math whats wrong ? Cant be the PRB because it just did what the math said it couldn’t .There for the only thing left , no mater how unlikely it seems , is the most likely culprit of the error IE the math .
The thing about math is its only as good as the person working on it , if ALL the proper variables are not included , if just one is left out , the resulting sum can not be comparable .
Title:
Post by: oomcurt on September 16, 2008, 09:44:30 PM: I gotta say this...I just gotta.....

All this kind of makes me wonder....chronographs, computers, charts, weighing balls to get them all the same or as close to it as possible.... It seems to me, all those people back in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century must have either starved or been awfully lucky hitting anything. I wonder just why it is that back then folks did what they did with what they had and got along just fine. Today....with some people....unless it is backed up with all kinds of scientific proof...it just ain't so. Baloney! Seems to me life in general would be a whole lot simple and more enjoyable without all the modern hoopla.

Just my two cents...
Curt
Title:
Post by: Spotted Bull on September 16, 2008, 10:02:33 PM: Quote from: "oomcurt"
I gotta say this...I just gotta.....

All this kind of makes me wonder....chronographs, computers, charts, weighing balls to get them all the same or as close to it as possible.... It seems to me, all those people back in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century must have either starved or been awfully lucky hitting anything. I wonder just why it is that back then folks did what they did with what they had and got along just fine. Today....with some people....unless it is backed up with all kinds of scientific proof...it just ain't so. Baloney! Seems to me life in general would be a whole lot simple and more enjoyable without all the modern hoopla.

Just my two cents...
Curt

Very well said, sir!
Title:
Post by: Ohio Joe on September 16, 2008, 10:03:01 PM: It's a good two cents worth Curt. :shake
Title:
Post by: sse on September 16, 2008, 10:11:45 PM: Curt - I agree with your comment in spirit, and that is pretty much how I approach it because that is the most fun for me. However, it is known that our forbearers accomplished some pretty amazing things as far as marksmanship goes, and I know that this did not come from a lackadaisical approach to the discipline. They really had their act together, but the details are lost to posterity...
Title:
Post by: oomcurt on September 17, 2008, 02:00:29 PM: Yup...that is for sure...having thier act together. I don't think it is such a mystery though. They used thier guns pretty much like a carpenter uses his hammer....every day. Well...wait...even there....things have changed...today we have framers, finishers, etc. It used to be that in order to be a carpenter one had to know all phases. This whole thing of "specialists"....rediculous...pretty soon I can see it where all these specialists will know more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything there is to know abouut nothing. Funny thing...well...no it isn't....but as an example, it was only maybe 10 or so years ago...maybe even sooner where it was not uncommon to see folks where I live driving around in thier pickup truck with thier rifle in a gun rack by the rear window. Today...you don't see that..I hear if one tries that in Denver one will be arrested. One more step I guess toward total dominance by the the goobermint. Bah!