[BHP9]

Yesterday I was shooting an 1895 7x57 Mauser rifle and a 1896 model Mauser rifle with some cast bullet loads that I cooked up.

Powder used was 4198 at velocities of around 1700 to 1900 fps.

Also some modern high velocity hand loaded jacketed bullets were also tested that also shot some very small groups in the 1/2 inch , 3/4 inch range.

What amazed me was that these old rifles built with old technology without the benefit of heavy actions or heavy barrels or glass bedding or 2 ounce trigger pulls shot 5 shots into groups as small as 1/2 inch at 100 yards. I have not often been able to duplicate this with some of my more modern sporting rifles.

The barrels had rifling cut one groove at a time and then hand lapped to perfection. The rifling was not hammered in or ironed in as many modern barrels are.

The barrel steel supposedly was not as clean but judging from the amazing groups it sure did not hurt the accuracy any.


I think that some of the small increases in accuracy that have come about in the exotic weapons used in bench shooting (not current military guns or sporting guns) have come about more because of advanced bedding techniques such as glass bedding and the use of extremely heavy actions as found in the custom heavy and very stiff single shot actions that are used today in bench rest shooting.

Bullets too are often made with more precision than older jacketed bullets but when older guns are shot with modern jacketed bullets or both old and new guns are shot with good cast bullets the older guns seem to shoot just as well if we are comparing apples to apples i.e. modern sporting guns with actions comparable in weight to the older sporting guns of similiar weight actions such as say a Remingtion or Savage action compared to a turn of the century Mauser action.

I think many of the older sporting rifles were truly works of art being built of the finest materiels and workmanship that ever went into both military and sporting weapons and I would not feel the least bit underarmed in the hunting fields today with grandad's older designed weapons, and in terms of reliablity I know that when I pull the trigger these guns are going to fire and when I work the action I know these guns are going to feed without malfunction or breakage even under the worst of conditions.

I remember reading only recently in one of the Gun rags a gun writer admitting that the gun he took to Africa was made of traditional blued steel and walnut. His reasoning? He admitted that the thought of showing his friends a picture of himself with a plastic rifle in his hands was a little more than he could bare.

[BusMaster007]

:D Sounds like you had a great time at the range, BHP9.
Good shooting by both you and the old rifles.

[telewinz]

Thats what they call old world craftmanship. It was in many cases as good as today's but much more expensive and not affordable to the masses. How many middle class Americans could own a large gun collection just for recreational use 100 years ago?

[Handy]

You shot a half inch group with 1895 Mauser sights?:o

[T.Stahl]

Well, I recently bought my first two rifles, a '45 Enfield No.4Mk.I and an HK SL8. Using the iron (or plastic) sights, I get better groups from the old Enfield than the new SL8. :confused:

[Lebe]

True old world craftmanship,.. my 1909 Argentine Mauser.

[Badger Arms]

Modern rifles are more likely to shoot better than old ones. CNC machines and advances in the quality and consistancy of steels make older rifles obsolete. Much of this is negated by automation though.

I'll ask one thing, how many people knew or cared about glass bedding, free-floating, bolt lug lapping, etc. back 100 years ago?

[Nero Steptoe]

I've found that some of the best groups ever fired from "ancient" weapons were those fired with a keyboard! ;)

[tex_n_cal]

Accuracy is about consistency of vibration during the firing process, as well as mechanical precision of the projectile. Get it in it's sweet spot, and an old rifle can be amazing.

I have a '52 FN mauser that has no problem doing MOA, a '96 Krag that can do 1.5MOA with open sights, and a '50's Savage 99 that will do 1/2 MOA when its scope is on board.

[nextjoe]

Lebe,

That's a magnificent Argie you have. I'm negotiating to pick up a 1909 Peruvian action at the moment. It'll make a great .275 Rigby if I can pry it out of its owner's hands :)

Best,
Joe

[Hkmp5sd]

During the American Revolution, the Kentucky rifle was one of the firearms used by the American side. In 1922, an original Kentucky rifle from that war underwent a series of tests and when fired from a rest, it could place 5 shots into a 2.1" group at 100 yards.

During the Civil War, an Officer in Archer's Tennessee Brigade shot General John Sedgwick at a distance of 2250 yards using a Whitworth rifle.

[cracked butt]

My swedish M96's amaze me everytime I shoot them. One of them will shoot tighter than myLeupold scoped Rem 700 even though I've spent alot of time developing a few good loads for the 700. As much as I love my Rem 700, if you were to take an M96 and a 700 apart and look at the pieces and how they fit together, the 700 looks like a toy.


I agree that most modern rifles will shoot better than most 100 year old rifles, but there are pletny of exceptions- just as not all modern rifles are made to the same quality standards, neither are all old rifles. I don't think there are many rifles made today that are made as well assome of the old Swedish rifles, pre-ww1 German made rifles, or post wwI Czech made rifles.

[BigG]

Firing groups with a keyboard was one of the old gunwriters' tricks from way back.

[JohnBT]

I'd bet that a cheap modern rifle would outshoot a cheap rifle from the 1950s. That period spans my personal experience, but I have nothing scientific to back it up but a fair amount of experience with cheap rifles.

I guess my point is...Is it fair to compare the best guns of 100 years ago to the run-of-the-mill guns of today? When you're talking about how well a '95 or '96 Mauser shoots, how did the less famous rifles of that age shoot? Just as well or is the Mauser famous because it was the exception?

John

[rennaissancemann]

On the subject of General John Sedgwick death at the hands of a Confederate sniper.

No less than five Confederate sharpshooters claimed to have shot General "Uncle John" Sedgwick at the battle of Spottsylvania on May 9, 1864. The claim that the General was shot at a distance of 2250 yards using a Whitworth rifle is probably attributable to Benjamin Medicus Powell, CSA. Powell claimed that he had shot a mounted officer with his Whitworth rifle at a distance of over "half a mile." When it was reported later that day that General Sedgwick had been killed by a Confederate sharpshooter it was assumed that Powell had made the shot.

Another account was written by General Sedgwick’s chief-of-staff, Brevet Major-General Martin T. McMahon. General McMahon relates that, he and General Sedgwick had "sauntered out slowly" to a point in the line where a formation of infantry was overlapping an artillery section. The process of shifting the infantry unit drew a "sprinkling fire, partly from sharp-shooters." General McMahon reported that twice, "a sharp-shooter's bullet passed with a long shrill whistle very close," and that each time the infantrymen had dodged at the sound. General Sedgwick told his men that he was ashamed of them, dodging that way, and remarked that, " They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." A third shot struck General Sedgwick on his left cheek under the eye, killing him instantly. General McMahon estimated that the range was in excess of 500 yards.

Respectfully,

[Mike Irwin]

"2250 yards"


YARDS?

I don't think so, folks. Whitworths were scary accurate for the time, but 2,250 yards is well over 1 MILE.

I don't know what the BC on a Whitworth slug is, but I suspect that even if it retained the stability to hit at that distance that bullet drop would have been in the range of 100 or more feet.

2,250 feet? Yeah, that I could buy. That's 750 yards, but still doable with a bit of luck.

[Tamara]

Firing groups with a keyboard was one of the old gunwriters' tricks from way back.

Get out!

Just yesterday, I fired a .5" group. With my short-lever Martini! On the surface of Jupiter! At 10^6 km away, what fraction of MOA is that? ;)

[Hkmp5sd]

One of the most exceptional feats of long-range shooting was directed against such a group of Union officers, a story later recounted by Captain F.S. Harris:

"I remember a shot by a Tennessee lieutenant in 1864, which I have never seen equalled. Soon after Grant's mine exploded near Petersburg in the summer of 1864, an officer in Archer's Tennessee Brigade observed a party of horsemen ascend an eminence far in the rear of the Federal lines. He called Captain Slade, Chief Engineer of A.P. Hill's Corps, who was passing at that moment, and asked him to calculate the distance. Slade estimated it to be 2,250 yards. Just as one of the men, apparently a general, rode away from the group and stopped at the highest point, the lieutenant took a Whitworth rifle belonging to one of the sharpshooters in the Brigade, trained the gun on him with a globe sight, deliberately aimed and fired.

"The officer fell from his horse, and his staff gathered around him quickly. Two more shots were fired in rapid succession, and three men were carried from that place."

Stalk and Kill: The Sniper Experience by Adrian Gilbert

...the Whitworth was a formidable piece of engineering. The iron sight was graduated up to a figure of 1,200 yards, and in the knowledge that they would be used for long-range shooting, most were fitted with a 14-inch Davidson telescopic sight, offset-mounted on the left of the rifle.

Utilizing the same weight of bullet as the Enfield rifle (a heavy 530 grains), the Whitworth had a reduced bore size (.45 of an inch, as against the Enfield's .577) which improved velocity and ballistic stability. This, and its superb barrel (complete with hexagonal rifling), ensured that it was exceptionally accurate.

There are several instances of hits being confirmed at ranges of 1,500 yards and more.

Sniper: The World of Combat Sniping by Adrian Gilbert

[Mannlicher]

Amazing. I have been shooting vintage Mausers and other mil surp rifles for 40 years, and have never been able to shoot groups like 1/2 MOA. Amazing. Just amazing.

[Tamara]

No doubt the Whitworth was an amazing long range rifle, and no doubt there are countless eyewitness recollections of this very shot taking place (keeping in mind what we know about "eyewitness testimony" in a courtroom). Given what we know about many more recent, better documented ultra-long range shots (from Hathcock in Vietnam to the Canuck in Afghanistan), using modern rangefinders, better weapons and infinitely superior cartridges (if anyone wants to think a Whitworth muzzle loader was inherently more accurate than a .338 Lapua or .50 BMG, be my guest), and given that even Billy Dixon considered his 1500-yard shot at Adobe Walls to be pure dumb luck, you don't find the anything to be slightest bit apocryphal about a deliberate kill at one and a quarter miles with a Whitworth?

I can dig up sworn diary entries from sea captains about the two-headed lion men that infested sub-Saharan Africa if I look hard enough... ;)

[BHP9]

I think that many of todays shooters who shoot only for recreation and not serious competition or subsistance hunting do not realize how great a shots some of the old timers really were that lived with a rifle in their hands day in an day out.

People who hunted for a living which even includes the big game guides of today can often come amazinging close when judging distance by eyesight alone. In my youth many of the old timers that took me ground hog hunting could tell at a glance the distance involved when shooting a ground hogs. We did not have range finders back then unless one drug out the old style cumbersome WWII type rangefinders which we seldom needed.

In the battle of the adobe walls one of the rifleman that was there, his name escapes me at the moment but I am almost sure it was Billy Dixon, shot an indian off of his horse at what was later measured at, I beleive , over a mile. Sounds impossible to those that have never shot at long range targets in competition but what seems impossible to the occassional shooter is not so impossible to the people who are professional hunters or target competitors.

I myself once thought that the limit of a shotgun with a rifled barrel was just about 100 yards until one hunting season when I was down to the last minutes of the season I spotted a deer running away from me at the distance of a later measured 200 yards. I shot from the standing position in a National Match Stance and the slug entered the deer and went into the chest and right out of the chest. This still did not bring the deer down. He stood there with his head down not moving. I went into the sitting position and put another round into him which broke the spine and killed him.

Later when I related what actually happened to my once a year hunter friends they did not believe a word of it until later they ran into a friend of mine who I had been hunting with that day and who happened to bring the story up of my 200 yard shot. What was to them an impossibility was not so impossible for a man who shoots over 3,000 round of practice a year in rifle competition.

The moral of the story is that what seems impossible to the unskilled is not so impossible for the well trained. A person who practices seriously and shoots a minumum of 2,000 rounds a year in the offhand position without the aid of a sling is well on his way to becoming a High Master Rifleman but even this does not happen overnight or in the first couple of years of practice. This skill also transfers itself even into testing loads off of the bench when ringing out a rifle for all the accuracy it is worth. Complete follow through, complete concentration to the exclusion of everything else, breath control , trigger control, consistant sight picture and calling the shot before it strikes the target, and being in good physical condition are all marks of the supreme rifleman who is able to shoot amazingly tight groups wether it be from the solid position of the bench or the extreme challenge of unsupported offhand shooting.

I think one of the greatest of satisfactions for me personally is when young shooters, (who have all the advantages of good eyesight and amazing physical stamina, but not yet enough practice) stand in awe of the more experienced rifle shooter and make remarks like "How in the world does he do that?" To which I reply, "You too can accomplish the same feats of marksmanship but much more easily than I for it is you who have the advantage of youth, all you need is a little more practice. If I can do it , you can do it 10 times better. I only wish it were not quite so true."

I would only like to add that I have seen extememly skilled people using ancient Mauser rifles dating back even to the model of1891 clean the clocks off of people using the most advanced target rifles made today on the National Match course. Yes they did put some adjustable sights on the guns but other than that they made no alteration to these "Ancient Ones" and they shot every bit as good as the modern rifles.

[telewinz]

I'd have to study the documentation on those shots very, very, carefully. As far as 1000 and 1500 yard shots, well the hits get the PR the dozens (if not hundreds) of misses go unmentioned.

[Tamara]

In the battle of the adobe walls one of the rifleman that was there, his name escapes me at the moment but I am almost sure it was Billy Dixon, shot an indian off of his horse at what was later measured at, I beleive , over a mile.

It was Billy Dixon and the distance was 1,500 yards, which is not "over a mile".

"Those who cannot remember their siglines are condemned to misquote them" - Tamara ;)

[Hkmp5sd]

you don't find the anything to be slightest bit apocryphal about a deliberate kill at one and a quarter miles with a Whitworth?

My estimate that it's the same as anything else a man does and then recounts in the tavern to his friends, that the story was greatly exaggerated. :) But I do believe the 1,500 yard shots, although most likely with more than one shot to hit the target. Even Carlos Hathcock had to walk some of his shots to the target.

[BHP9]

Those who cannot remember their siglines are condemned to misquote them" - Tamara

As usuall you were only hell bent to attack anything I say and you missed by a mile the whole point of the post and which was that long range shots are very possible and have been done in the past with some very old weapons that were contrary to popular belief very accurate even when compared to todays weapons with all of the advantages of high powered telescopic sights , glass bedding and precision made hand loaded ammo.

Examples are many including some very long range shooting done by the Dutch in their war with the English in South Africa using the ancient 7x57 Mauser rifles. Many of todays shooters consider the stories impossible but they were all to well documented by both sides to ignore by the serious student of the history of long range shooting and warfare.

[Tamara]

As usuall you were only hell bent to attack anything I say and you missed by a mile the whole point of the post

Turnabout is fair play, nicht wahr?

Speaking of "missed by a mile the point of the post"... :rolleyes:

I've no doubt that all manner of lucky shots have occured throughout the history of firearms.

Hkmp5sd,

Of the five guys who swear on a stack of bibles that they are the one who zapped Sedgwick, the Hero of Capt. Harris's account is one of the least plausible for one reason: Sedgewick wasn't mounted when he was killed... ;)

[cracked butt]

I don't think glass bedding is any kind of huge modern advantage. How many rifles come from the factory glass bedded?
Its more of a remedy for stocks that are poorly fitted to begin with. Having been shooting mauser military rifles for several years, the first time I took a Rem 700 apart (a rifle that has a reputation for good accuracy, and mine was not exception) I was shocked. What the he.. aluminum triggerguard, rough inletting, tang is not pillar bedded???:rolleyes: The bore quality of my factory barrelled 700 is not even anywhere near as good as some of my rifles that are over 75 years old. I don't have a bore scope, but I can see nicks and rough areas in the rifling, whereas I can not see any such thing in some of my older rifles.

[Art Eatman]

I love the Billy Dixon story. The range varies from the probable 1,300 yards or so on out to over a mile, depending on the source. I read one account from way back when that said he was actually aiming at an Indian adjacent to the one that was hit--and I find that sorta credible. :)

I fairly regularly see folks wandering around my area at distances of 1/2 a mile on out to over a mile. I have found that my pet rig can make nice groups at 500 yards. I know pretty much what is the trajectory of an '06 "way out there". Scope, knowledge and all, I'd be hesitant to bet money on hitting a human-sized target, first shot, without knowing the exact distance.

Absent a range-finder, I'm sorta hard to convince about first-shot hits with these older rifles, way out there. "I flang it up, pulled trigger, and he went down." comes from somebody I don't wanna play poker against.

But as has been proven many times, luck will beat skill, any day of the week.

:), Art

[SteelyDan]

I'm blanking a little on my history, but, what, maybe 500,000 soldiers were killed during the civil war? And for each of those deaths, I assume there were several multiples of nonlethal hits. And for each of those casualties, I assume there were, who knows, five or ten or twenty shots fired that didn't hit? So, out of the many millions of shots fired, I'm just not sure how statistically significant a few lucky shots would be. I'm a lot more persuaded by the weapons' performance under more controlled conditions than by such anectdotal evidence.

[roscoe]

a statistical thank you, steelydan

[Art Eatman]

A bit of perspective on Old Rifles: The WW II cost of a Garand, I have read, was $94.

Before my father went into the Army, his salary as a graduate engineer with some 8 years experience was around $200 a month. My grandfather was a school principal with 20 years experience in Austin (37 total) and his salary was $300 a month. My mother got her PhD in Psych in 1942 and UTex raised her pay to some $115 a month.

Common labor earned $40 to $60 a month.

In 1941-ish, a Model 70 Winchester sold for $54.

From what I know of today's salaries and costs, then, you'd have to compare these old military rifles with the top of the line commercials, and possibly on into the custom-rifle arena.

We equal the performance of the past, but at 1/3 the cost and sometimes even less (NEF, e.g.).

Art

[Mike Irwin]

"I don't think glass bedding is any kind of huge modern advantage. How many rifles come from the factory glass bedded?
Its more of a remedy for stocks that are poorly fitted to begin with."

I'd LOVE it if every rifle coming off the line was hand inlet into its stock, so that wood and metal mates perfectly!

I'd also love the price that would be charged for such a service!

Fact of the matter is that you can't guarantee a perfectly fit action to wood, even at the best of times.

The reason rifles don't come from the factory glass bedded is because that would come under the realm of the custom fitting.

I don't think it would be possible to develop a machine that could effectively glass bed a rifle.

[BHP9]

[/QUOTE] I love the Billy Dixon story. The range varies from the probable 1,300 yards or so on out to over a mile, depending on the source.

Your quite righrt ART as a matter of fact I think it was years ago in "The GUN Digest" that ran the story and they claimed it was over a mile. Although I must admit the 1,500 yards would be a much more likely range to hit something in. Still we cannot rule out the possiblity that it was a mile or more.



We equal the performance of the past, but at 1/3 the cost and sometimes even less (NEF, e.g.).

Your right art but we pay a heavy price in terms of aesthetics and even reliablity and rugged construction. Very few if any of the modern bolt rifles will take the abuse that the early all steel, all forged weapons took and still take over 100 years later. Just as one of the other posters stated , that when he took apart his 1909 Argentine Mauser Rilfe and compared it to his Remnington rifle" the Remintion looked like a toy" what he was looking at was all the flimsy stamped sheet metal in the rifle.

[QUOTE]"I don't think glass bedding is any kind of huge modern advantage. How many rifles come from the factory glass bedded?

Glad you mentioned this Mike because this is one of my pet peeves. Many people think that the new synthetic stocks that come with the aluminum bedding block and a dab of soft glue like epoxy in the recoil lug area make the gun every bit as accurate as an old fashioned glass bedding job. I beg to differ and I have dug out that dab of glue and rebedded more than one synthetic stocked rifle and seen an improvement in accuracy. True it often is not dramtic in heavy barrled guns but it is there if one is experienced enough to look for it and compare before and after groups for consistancy.

In my opinion the aluminum bedding block in all instances does not always prevent the gun from moving around in the stock when under recoil and this becomes much more evident as the caliber and recoil goes up. It is not so noticable in the lower recoiling guns like the .22 centerfires. Lets face it, take apart a synthetic stock from the guns action and see how easily it comes apart and then after glass bedding the same weapon you will find you have to tap the stock out with a rubber mallet. This snug fit alone will tell you that the action is much more secure from moving around with a good glass bed job than with the aluminum bedding block with no glass bedding. It often does not take much movement at all to cause inconsistant accuracy and even fliers on some guns especially in the light barreled, heavy recoiling weapons.

All this brings up the comparison of the older stock weapons that often had such out of this world bedding that even 100 years later there is still little movement of the rifle's action in the stock because of the precise hand bedding techniques they used. It's just that hard glass bedding will often last a lot longer than the much softer hand bedded wood stock when thousands of rounds are put through a gun or if the caliber is very large which gives tremedous recoil coupled with the many rounds that are often fired on the target range. Glass bedding came about not so much because of a short term gain in accuracy but a long term gain in accuracy and a lower cost alternative that the home hobbiest could do himself rather than pay a custom stock maker big bucks to hand bed a wooden stock for the owner.

This is just my own personal opinion but I think the original idea of the aluminum bedding block really came about because of a need to strengthen up the flimsy low grade plastic stocks that are found on most production grade rifles (we are not talking about custom made layered synthetic stocks like those sold by Mcmillan) but they too also benefit from the stiffening of the aluminum bedding block. If the aluminum bedding block were not there on those stocks cranking down on the stock screws would crush the plastic just as wood stocks are crushed if too much torq is put on the screws. Even with the use of aluminum or steel pillars there is still a need for the aluminum bedding block to stiffen up the low grade plastic stocks on most production rifles.

I have also been told by gunsmiths that do a lot of work on these stocks that the low grade injected stocks will even change point of impact when under extreme heat or cold. Again we are not talking about the high grade and much more expensive layered custom stocks hand built by outfits like Mcmillan.

I often think way too much is made of the fact that the even the high grade sythetics are warp free so therefore one should scrap out his $1,0000 dollar triple grade "A" wood stock. I have waterproofed wood stocks and although they will not take a long term day after day soaking like the sythetics do it takes something this extreme to make them warp.

I personally have always carried a waterproof gun sack with me if caught far from camp in a down pore and I prefer not to hunt all day in the poring down rain anyway. I much prefer the beauty of the old weapons in the very fine wood stocks that many came with or had added to them. A little precaution and common sense, like oiling and even greasing the blued gun can let you have your cake and eat it too i.e. owning work of art but not having to leave it home hanging over the fire place or locked away in the deep dark unkown depths of your gun safe.

Old time famous hunters like Townsend Whelen and Jack O'conner and Waren Page often used expensive , beautifully made custom rifles for years and years under very adverse condtions in the far corners of the world before having to have them restocked because the stocks had worn out. They used a gun that was a work of art that they were proud to show their friends because it was not just built to be used as a low cost shooting machine.

I suppose a good old fashioned masterpiece of a rifle is best compared to riding to work in a rusted out pick up truck. Sure it will get you there if in fair mechanical condition but its not the same as riding in a Rolls Royce.

[BigG]

... Jack O'conner ...

Careful, BHP9. I heard Jack shot a lot of his trophies with a keyboard. :eek:

I agree with you about the asthetics of well made wood and metal weapons. Sure makes the modern stuff look Mickey Mouse. :uhoh:

[Art Eatman]

One problem with today's stocks is that the cost of really good walnut is outta sight. Today's walnut stocks don't appear or feel to be as dense (heavy), and the low end rifles use "hardwood". Since the laminated and the better synthetics are just as strong as quality walnut, the middle-grades to higher-end rifles are commonly seen with them.

I don't like stamped pieces, nor plastic, but there are plenty of all-steel critters out there. They just cost a bit more--and I spoke to that earlier.

A military rifle is expected to get harsher handling than a basic hunting rig. Dunno 'bout y'all, but I don't plan on having to buttstroke somebody with my Weatherby or my Sako. As far as the comparative strength of a military receiver or bolt, I don't see that as important. The receiver of my Ruger 77 Mk II in .223 is rather small, but it handles the pressure--which is all it's gotta do.

:), Art