Can't draw a good bead with my '42 Springfield

[wittzo]

Me and a friend were taking advantage of the pretty weather to shoot last Friday and zero some rifles of his.

I set up a target stand at 25 yards, 50 yards, and 100 yards so I could see what I could hit from a rest with my .54" 1841 Mississippi rifle and my .69" 1842 Springfield. They both hit in the ten ring at 25 yards from a rest.

I was hitting the 8 and 9 ring with my Mississippi rifle at 50 and 100 yards using .530" Lee Minie balls I cast myself with 60 grains of 2F 777. One round hit the 10 ring at 100 yards.

At 100 yards with the Springfield it was hard to line up the crude front sight so I leaned up against my deck rails to be more comfortable. I hit just outside of the black on paper, on the 5 ring, and on the 8 ring using .680" roundballs backed up with 1/8" lubed felt wads and 60 grains of either FFg Shockey's Gold or 777. I had gotten my paper cartridges mixed up. (I tore the cartridges open, poured in the powder, rammed a wad, then seated the ball with the paper glued to it)

I like the front sight of the Mississippi rifle and don't like its rear sight so much. I like the rear sight of the Springfield but don't like the steel front sight on the barrel band, I can't see it well enough. It's too rounded.

What can I do to the front sight to square it up so I can see it better? I'm thinking about filing the rear of the front bead to square it up and maybe file the outside of the front sight blade so it's more square, but won't take away height or blacking it to cut out the glare, too. What do you think?

My friend was impressed, especially after he fired the Springfield. He's used to ACOG's and crisp iron sights. He said if that was a man standing down there, he would be dead.

I'm going to spring for a minie ball mold for it if that will help it's accuracy.

 

[DrLaw]

You didn't say if the Springfield was rifled or not. If not, you need to select a ball and patch combination that makes a firm, but not too tight fit into the barrel.

If not rifled, the 100 yards is pushing it for a smoothbore. You might check in with the muzzleloading forum, too.

If rifled, you need to do the same thing. The 1842, in replica's too, was meant for round ball as opposed to a Minie ball.

The Doc is out now.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Not all "minnies" are alike. Even back during the war of Northern Agression. You may want to try different styles to see which function the best from each rifle. Minnies are also not invented for "target-accuracy", but to give acceptable accuracy while being quick on the reload. The majority of target shooters of the CW period used round ball or a paper patched round.

Second, the sights on military rifled muskets of the period were NOT for precision work. They were designed to survive rough handling by ham-fisted privates, and allow that private to hit somewhere on the intended target, which was assumed would be a standing man, at 100 yards (they were still using old Napoleonic standards even though they had improved the long arms 5 fold for accuracy). Beyond 100 yards they assumed you'd hit a man in the line, and the rifling was simply intended to increase the number of hits at longer ranges. Remember that a solid hit anywhere on a soldier with a .58 ball or minnie would remove him from the fight. Any solid hit was "good enough" back then. When the CW began the military planners were appalled at the actual results. The rifled muskets were far more accurate, and far more deadly, even at longer ranges, than expected.

Precision rifled muskets of the era, and precision rifles, all had much better sights on them. A front sight mounted on a barrel band, btw, isn't worth your tinkering, for your barrel will flex a bit as it heats up, and the minor differences in the band position every time you remove it for cleaning and replace it, both contribute to inaccuracy.

If you want some tight groups, consider a tang rear sight on both rifled muskets, and perhaps a Zouave or Enfield "sniper" front sight that clamps to the barrel, for the Springfield.

LD

 

[wittzo]

Both are rifled.

Thanks, Dave, that's what I wanted to find out.

I'm using natural brown rolling papers to make the .54" cartridges, the paper is glued to the minie balls' bases to act as paper patching. I just need to tweak the thickness and hone my skills, that front sight way out there gets to weaving and bobbing.

I have several .530" roundballs cast up, I'm going to experiment some more and work up a proper load at 25 and 50 yards with RB and minie for the .54" and RB for the Springfield.

A friend of a friend competes in BP target shooting, hopefully he can help. He uses a .58 Springfield, but I haven't met or talked with him yet. I have another friend of a friend who competes at the Sgt. York Turkey Shoot, hopefully, I can meet him soon and learn some things.

I just want to see how accurate I can get with these rifles, I'm already ahead of the curve, since I only paid $150 for the Mississippi rifle and $250 for the Springfield, I have some left over for better sights.

 

[StrawHat]

Consider modifying the existing sights.

On a Harpers Ferry 1803 I had, the rear sight was a wallow through which I couls see the front sight and most of the state. I soldered a piece of flat stock to it and but a square notch that allowed my groups to shrink quite a bit. Dovetailing front sights in place is no big deal and some original can be found with similar fixes. Adding a tang sight is a bit more complicated as the tang on the musket may not be long enough to accept the sight base. I have seen a peep style rear sight that is proper for the age of the musket. It can be dovetailed or screwed in place.

 

[DrLaw]

I've been reading on the Muzzleloading forum on how the smoothbores can be accurate, but if your version is rifled, then you should be able to do better. Your real problem just seems to be expecting super target accuracy out of a gun that was not made to be that way, since the sights are rudimentary, and I am also assuming the trigger is stiff.

Still, as Loyalist said, not all Minies are the same. If you go to a Civil War Museum you can get a real clear picture of that. You might try experimenting with the bullet as well as the powder charge.

Also, I wonder if gluing the paper to the bullet might have an adverse effect if some of the bullet clears itself of the paper and another part does not.

See if you can find some people who have different styles of Minies that they can let you have to do that experiment. Then you don't have to buy all sorts of molds to find out which works better.

The Doc is out now.

 

[wittzo]

I ordered a clamp on Zouave front sight and took a look at rear sight options. No one sells a tang sight for those rifles, they don't have a tang like the Sharps or lever actions, a tang sight would probably have to be mounted into the stock.

I like the rear sight of the Springfield, I'll see how it does with the clamp on front sight, if it fits. We just built a really nice shooting bench, so we can remove more variables. I'm sure a good chunk of the problem is me. I'm also going to work up a proper load at 25 yards and work my way up.

I'll look into swapping out the rear sight of the Mississippi rifle after I work up a good patch and ball load for it.

I didn't even think about it at the time, but I was loading a lubed wad patch between the ball and the powder, but didn't have a patch on the ball. I'm lucky I hit the target at 100 yards, much less put two balls in the black.

Next time I report,the results will be better, I'm sure.