Shiloh Rifle Forums

Ned Roberts book "The Muzzleloading Cap Lock Rifle" has a lengthy write up on the first Creedmoor match. I don't have anything like the library that Kenny has, just some of the more common books, bu it's the best write up I've read so far. There wasn't much talk in there about back positions, but it was noted that several shooters shot in a prone position.

I think that section of the book is worth the price of the entire book.

Chris.

Reading Stone henge, he mentions most LR shooters using the supine position - this of course being in the 1880's. Of course, no slings or 'any artificial supports' being allowed, I can understand it being the most stable position under those restrictions.

mdeland wrote:Were any hardening agents used besides tin to alloy for hardness such as mercury or antimony ?

I have uploaded some observations on the use of quicksilver (mercury) to harden bullets, and the development of bullet alloys by John Rigby & Co. - Rigby, Quicksilver & Bullet Alloys.

At the foot of that page are links to other notes on bullet alloys that I have posted. Metford used antimony.

David

This is a great thread!

Kenny, thanks for sharing your finding! I hope to see you on a range somewhere this year!

If I ever find a shootable original Sharps or Remington, I have ordered the book and will have a ton of fun copying the original loadings.

Best, DB

FYI, Edwin Perry's "Third Edition of Modern Observations on Rifle Shooting 1880", can be read online or downloaded at:
https://archive.org/details/modernobservatio00perr

with regard hard bullets, we must take into account that metford was primarily working with groove dia bullets, whereas the americans were using bore diameter and bumping them up.
even 10:1 lead/tin is softer than lead/tin/antimony alloys, although brinnel hardness comparisons do not necessarily translate to comparative bumpup in these case. kind of like comparing apples with oranges.
metford's chambers had freebore, and I suspect he used some pretty fancy wad stacks, as the brits had to shoot dirty.
dimensions of these areas and how bullets fitted would be very interesting.
I talk here of long range match shooting.
reading perry, mention was made of dirt diggers with hard bullets and leading with soft ones.
obviously the balance of lead/tin was to be experimented with.
he also mentions needing more comeup with softer bullets, a thing I have discovered myself.
keep safe,
bruce.

Mike d,
No mention on # 1 or # 2.

Bruce he does mention hard bullets may miss, this was in the first edition printing an unchanged in
the 3rd edition but all bullets by 1879 were 1-14 an 1-11. So softer 1-20 used and mentioned in my
Original 1876 copy of Forest and Stream Handbook for Riflemen, by 1879 was no longer in vogue.

This much is for certain for me using 1-16 alloy an near too bore thin paper is making damm good
scores and no surprise dirt diggers.

No fancy chambers either, my scores at Raton and Phoenix most proud of doing with pp makes it
all the better.

Boge asked me what was the best one too have, For a modern LR shooter Perry's 3'rd edition is by
far the best.

KW
The Lunger

Kenny, don't remember where I read/saw it.....BUT.....I do recall a shooter talking about a balanced load in regards to long range shooting. It may have been Farrow or a contemporary of his.

In your readings, do you recall a discussion about balanced loads or balancing a load ?

Kenny,
I too like to use 1:16 for its ability to hold nose shape while taking the rifling.
I think I use the same bullet as you in 45 cal - a baco money 1.5"long and about 540 gn at 16:1, 0.446 bare.
my dirt diggers have all coincided with a paper ring, I think due to the fact that I cannot fit your wad stack into my 2.4"case. this in a 45 degree transition.
when they don't dig dirt, they hold good vert.
in my previous post I was making the point not to confuse pommy techniques with American ones. mixing them won't work well.
there is only one way to test these things, and that is in the flames of competition.
sometime this robs us of dignity (me in particular), but some like you come out the other side through determination and perserverence, learning from failure as well as success.
I just hope I can one day come somewhere near your results.
keep safe,
bruce.

Bruce,
Get ya. Yeah way different ways too skin a cat. Beating Gullo then telling him I was using a 540 gr .446 Money, him saying we don't make that size or diameter of pp, and me saying .......... You do now . The look
PRICELESS !

Zack I recall that also can not remember where at the moment. Perry kinda says the same thing.

I have enjoyed this thread a great deal, Creedmoor is America's first great rifle sport, an I enjoy
Sharing these great resources I have rediscovered .

Kenny W.
The Lunger

Actually, Metford's wad stack was pretty modest by the standards of the day - I'd have to check Stonehenge to be sure, but it essentially consisted of (1? 2?) thin lubed felt wads (paraffin comes to mind) and a few card wads. And don't forget this was mainly for shooting dirty with PP.
FWIW, my PP bullets shoot best with just a card wad - but then, it is indeed a groove-dia. bullet that doesn't have to bump up all that much.

bruce m wrote:metford's chambers had freebore, and I suspect he used some pretty fancy wad stacks, as the brits had to shoot dirty.

The "shooting dirty" observation is often repeated and I am not sure where it derives from, but it was not until 1883 that the NRA(GB) banned cleaning between shots in match (or 'any') rifle competition, and this post dates the international series of long range match rifle events.

Metford's 1866 notes on management of the muzzle loading match rifle makes brief mention of cleaning between shots in specific weather conditions. He elaborates on this (albeit still briefly) in the 1876 edition. Similarly with regards to the Farquarson-Metford BL match rifle he observes that exposure of the paper patch of the bullet beyond the cartridge case is of no consequence as cleaning between shots IS permited in match shooting.

Metford's notes of 1876 simply refer to a "stiff wad, soaked in wax" on top of which is placed a "cloth disk" to "prevent the wadding sticking to the rear of the bullet". The bullet by the way at that time appears to be bore size as he notes on exploding the cartridge the bullet "after leaving the case expands into the rifling".

David

Gert, David, You both have a greater understanding of what the history of the development was of Brit, Irish and Scott rifles from the 1850' thru the 80's than I do but while reading Walsh's book, he refers to the different rifle builders shooting for the various prizes. Elcho Shield, Queen's prize, Duke's prize etc. and didn't they all require shooting multiple shots dirty? From my understanding, it was all for the development of coming up with the best military rifle possible. This lead to the various rifling techniques tried and used. ex. Rigby, Whitworh, Henry, Enfield, Metford, ratchet etc.) Metford tried many styles of rifling, powder charges, bullet shapes and weights along with alloys until he finally arrived at his Metford gain twist along with his bullet design in the .461 Gibbs. Surprisingly, it's a spittin image of the original money bullet.
When the Irish came over to shoot the Creedmoor in 74' they were expecting to shoot dirty because that's all they had ever done.
Kenny, you mention your success with shooting the .446" diameter bullet with very thin paper. Have you seen any evidence of the rifling cutting thru the paper and causing leading? Reason I ask, is with our .004" deep rifling, you'd think it wouldn't protect the bullet. I had a Hepburn once that had very shallow grooves and the only original ammo that I have ever seen for it was always paper patched. Kurt and I were talking about this last spring at Lodi and were wondering about thin paper.

No leading issues. The Seth Cole paper is giving a as patched diameter of .4515.

And good scores the key is as Perry mentions a perfectly clean bore. Every shot.

KW
The Lunger

Old-Win wrote:Elcho Shield, Queen's prize, Duke's prize etc. and didn't they all require shooting multiple shots dirty?

There were a variety of competitions that evolved under NRA Rules: for Volunteers shooting their arm of issue (P.53 Enfield, Snider..), for military breech loaders (MBL) and for match (or 'any') rifle.

Cleaning was specifically permitted in early rules: eg. 1869, 1. General Regulations, VIII. Competitors may wipe out or clean out their rifles during any competitions, provided they do not delay the squad by so doing. (From an original rule book in my library). By 1872 (again from original regulations) muzzle loading competitors "may wipe out or clean their rifles during a competition, provided they do not delay the squad by so doing." For competitions specifically for breech loaders, eg. MBL events, cleaning was only permitted between the distances. My 1875 rule book also states the same.

Essentially, cleaning was not permitted in the military breech loader competition, but in the 'any' rifle events cleaning was permitted. Metford in his 1876 memoranda specifically refers to cleaning out the match breech loader with "a square of unbleached swan's-down wetting in the mouth" by the way.

So the Irish when arriving at Creedmoor in 1874 were used to shooting under Wimbledon rules that permitted cleaning. How or whether they chose to exercise that option is a different matter.

If you are referring to Walsh's book, see Vol.II, page 464 and under 1883 you will see reference to prohibiting wiping out between shots that year. Incidently I have found references to gunmakers changing their rifling form then to cope with the introduction of the no cleaning rule.

David