[Joe Martin]

Hello all,

For the past several years I have been playing with the idea of testing one of my .45 caliber Jacob Dickert Flintlock Rifle's (1770's period) to see what these type of muzzleloaders were capable of during the American Revolutionary War.

I have been a loyal fan and user of traditional muzzleloaders for over 30 years, using them in Local, State, and National level Competitions, Rendezvous, Parades, and Hunting. I have a pretty good idea of what they're capable of, but I want to expand my knowledge and see for myself if the 200 to 300 yard shots can be made with any real consistency that does not entail a luck factor, but rather our forefathers' skill factor. If my test range stretched further then 300 yards, I would test even further.

I did some preliminary testing last Fall with one of my Dickerts, and I thought the results not to bad... I took one shot from 200, 175, 150, 125, and 100 yards at an 'American Target Co. B-18 (black) target', in which I used the entire target for results (18 1/2" x 32") and was actually surprised that each shot did indeed strike the target which would have resulted in injury or death to an enemy Redcoat. No offense meant on the term 'Redcoat' ... I'm merely utilizing a tool, (a Dickert Rifle) that would have been present during the ARW at some point.

This is a project I've been wanting to do for sometime and this year (2008) it looks as if I will have the time to get this done. I'm shooting for an April start on the testing. Over the next couple of months I will lay out my test/experiment plan that I will follow through the year to its completion. My idea is that I will become the, 'Backwoodsman Rifleman' that will hopefully wreak havoc on the Redcoat's officer's ranks, and see if I have what it takes to have been such a person who may have done this very thing of sniping enemy officers during the ARW... It should be interesting and fun, as well as educational. I hope!

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Sean Flynt]

I'd love to see you develop this into a published article here rather than a forum post! In fact, I wish we had articles covering similar subjects--range and accuracy of war bows, muskets, etc.

[Joe Martin]

Thank you for the welcome, Jean. If I can add any productive information along these lines, I am more then willing to share my experiences. From what I have seen so far here, this appears to be a very enjoyable site to visit, and take part in.

Sean,

I agree... I believe the results of my testing in this area of interest would be better viewed all at once rather then piece meal, so to speak. Much easier to follow along with that way. Thanks for the good suggestion!

[James King]

I would be very interested in the results of your test.I recently recieved a Early Lancaster in .54 cal. flintlock rifle(a Jim chambers kit assembled by R. Stroh).

[Joe Martin]

Hello James,

While at work today I was thinking of this and what I would use as a target backing... I decide rather then use the target I described above with a cardboard backing, that I would make a 'soldier' silhouette from 3/4 inch cdx plywood. My reasoning for this is that I would like to see the penetration effect of the .445 round ball I will be using when I extend the range out to, and past, 200 yards. I thought a soldier's silhouette of 72" from head to heal would be appropriate, which also allows for boots and hat height from the time period we're testing in. I will say the silhouette soldier's actual hight is 5'6" before boot's and hat is taken into account.

A hit anywhere on the silhouette can then be determined wheather it was a wounding or fatal hit, or perhaps a possible boarderline hit that could swing either way, and maybe just a hit that would knock his hat off. To my belief, a 'solid' full ball hole/hit in the silhouette with no 'edge nicks' on the target would at the very least, (most likely) render an enemy soldier out of action for a while, or permanently,,, unless of course it's obvious that the ball only passed through the hat above the scalp.

I plan to begin my testing in April. What I plan to do is a series of three shot test's from each of the following ranges; 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 275, and 300 yards, 27 shots in all. With any luck I may be able to have all my findings by the end of June, or before. I will take plenty of pictures as well.

Also, just to get into the spirit of things, I will wear period clothing and only allow myself the loading and cleaning tools that would be found in a Backwoodsman's possibles/shooting bag. No extra's here such as swabbing between shots or the use of range rod's for loading. I want to try and keep this as 1770's as possible, though I will use an antler tipped short starter and a Deer Antler Powder Measurer that holds 75 grains of 3f Black Powder, and I'll spit patch.

I chose my .45 Dickert Rifle (it's a plain working man's rifle with no fancy carvings) as I'm pretty well familiar with this rifle as well as having a pretty darn good working knowledge of the windage and elevation required when making these shots. I've shot a lot of offhand and rest position long range gongs and metal NRA silhouettes with this rifle, so i know it pretty darn well. Something our forefather's would have been familiar with, with their rifles.

I hope this gives a better picture of what I will be experimenting with.

By the way James,,, you can't go wrong with a Jim Chamber's kit. You got a good one!

[Lin Robinson]

Joe....

I will be very interested in the results of your tests which will probably either refute or support some comments I have made on this forum from time to time.

Over forty years of owning, shooting and studying muzzle loaders, I have formed an opinion that, while these guns, made under what today would be considered primitive conditons, were remarkably accurate, some of the legendary tales involving their use were either exaggerated or the result of an inability to accurately determine the distance of a shot. I also feel that while these guns had their limitations, the ability of the users may have made up for them. We cannot know for sure after the passage of so many years what sort of physical and mental abilities the old riflemen possessed, but it is almost certain that they could judge range, windage and elevation much better than the average person and that they were able to control their heart rates as some modern competitive shooters can. And, we can be sure they were quick to take advantage of any available rests to support their rifles.

Any way, I look forward to the results of your tests.

[Joe Martin]

Thanks Lin,

The one big thing that draws my attention to the ranges is that when such long range shots were made
and reported in the London Times by the British officers, they always say "Paces" not yards. I am under the
belief that a 'pace' would be in the neighborhood of 26 to 28 inches. I have to get to work right now, but I'd like to go into greater detail of this tonight.

Later my friends,

[Joe Martin]

I must retract the following as I was not correct with my thinking of what I had 'thought' I read, but rather
had remembered reading somewhere about this topic;

"reported in the London Times by the British officers, they always say "Paces" not yards"

Well, in my book, 'The Frontier Rifleman' by Richard B. LaCrosse, Jr., the reports in the 'London Chronicle' (not the London Times) do in fact use the word 'Yards' not 'Paces'... Sorry for that wrong information...

I can not find the source where I did read something to this nature that did bring into question wheather or not
when a story of marksmanship was told, was the teller referring to yards, or paces???

If in fact it was paces, 26 to 28 inches by my estimation, a 300 yard shot would actually be a shot made from
217 yards to 233 yards. Even by giving a 'pace' a 30 inch distance, the 300 yard shot would be 250 yards. I
can not find a reference to back this possibility up, and I do apologize for that. So at this time it is merely hear
say with no foundation, and my testing will be done using actual 'yards'...

I would also like to add that my testing is not for the purpose to debunk any, tests, theories, or findings.
This is simply a test of possibilities as no one group to my mind will have every individual with the same
exact abilities.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Joe Martin]

I do see listed & pictured in the Frontier Rifleman, rifles from this era of; .43, .49, .52, .58 caliber, and surprisingly find that there are two .43 caliber rifles pictured, while only one each of the others. Could this mean that .43 calibers were common? I don't believe we have a way to tell for sure, as we don't know if they were rifled with that bore, or freashed out and re'rifled to the .43 caliber?

I do recall it is said of one of Danial Boone's rifles, as it being .44 caliber.

[Lin Robinson]

Take a look at this article for an interesting take on early American longrifles. The article is eighty-five years old.

http://members.aol.com/illinewek/faqs/boonegun.htm

[Victor Lavenstein]

Joe,
It's all I can do to keep rounds from a Snider or Martini-Henry on target at 100 yards . 200 yards is my limit here in Rhode Island. It will be interesting to see your results at 300 yards with fixed sights. I'm not an expert on the Revolutionnary riflemen, but wouldn't 300 yards have been extreme long range (more generalized harassing fire) for the likes of Timothy Murphy? Good luck, but watch out for those bayonet-armed flankers!

Victor

[Joe Martin]

Good article, Lin!

I am in agreement with much of what is offered in the article as it does in fact hold true to this day.

Victor,

Yes... A 300 yard shot is getting out there for sure. I think all long range shots with the rifle I'll be
using for this might be considered harassing fire, until that fire starts hitting a mark with some
regularity.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Lin Robinson]

Jean...

I have read a lot of the late Elmer Keith's writings and have always enjoyed them. However, I have also noticed a tendancy, especially late in his life, for Mr. Keith to make some factual errors and perhaps to exaggerate a bit. Mr. Keith was one of the best know and most beloved gun writers of the 20th century, contributed enormously to the advancement of ballistics and firearms technology in general and was an expert on many things. However, and I have never run across this before, I don't think he or anyone else is capable of bringing down a deer at a range of 600 yards with a .44 magnum pistol.

The external ballistics of such a shot are daunting to say the least. With a 100 yard zero and a 265 grain bullet loaded to a muzzle velocity of 1329 fps, the retained energy at 600 yards is only about 325 ft lbs. With pinpoint placement it is possible for a bullet packing that much power to down a deer-sized animal at that range. However, with the gun zeroed for 100 yards the bullet drop is over 400 inches!

If anyone could do it, it would be Elmer Keith, but I have serious doubts.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gordon Frye]

Joe, what make of powder do you plan on using? It will definitely make a difference. For a comparison between the commercial black powders available, check out Ulrich Bretschler's "Black Powder Page". He has a lot of very good information on the performance of various makes of powder: http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/history.html

Now will come the hard part: trying to decide what quality of powder would have been available to your average frontiersman during the Rev War period? I know that I. E. Dupont de Nemurs was so disgusted with the quality of powder he was able to obtain while in the US at the turn of the 18th/19th Century that rather than forming a French colony in Delaware, he started his own powder mill instead (he had been a student of Antoine Lavoisier, so he knew what he was doing), which of course became the giant chemical company Dupont. Anyway the Swiss powders seem to be almost as good as some of the better American powders of the 19th Century, but not as good as the best. Certainly it's better than Goex though.

I would imagine that a rifleman would obtain the very best powder available, and any military agents would funnel the best to their riflemen, leaving the lesser quality powders to be used in cartridges for the muskets, or for artillery. So going with the best quality powder available to you is probably the wisest choice, since then you will at least find the optimum capabilities of your rifle. From that point, discussion can begin.

(BTW, I have a very nice Jim Chambers Long Rifle myself, cal. .50". It doesn't get nearly as much use as it should though, I mostly stick with my matchlocks, wheellocks and archaic flinters, I'm afraid.)

Cheers!

Gordon

[Lin Robinson]

My sources say that the Swiss powder is currently the best on the market. I have been forced to used GOEX because it is what I have on hand. Finding anything else is pretty difficult in this area. I would buy the 25 pound minimum, but I do not have a magazine and my usage would not justify the expenditure. A friend of mine who lives some distance from here does have some and I may try to talk him out of a couple of pounds the next time I am in his area. I would really like to try it in my .45-70 Sharps.

[Joe Martin]