• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Trapdoor Grouping

Chief TC

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2023
Messages
708
Location
Oregon
I have been shooting black powder rifles for awhile now and competed and done well. However, I am far from being considered experienced or an expert. I was shooting my 1884 Trapdoor with my usual loads and noticed my grouping and MOA improved substantially the further I shot. 200-300yds was about 5 MOA and 400-500yds was about 2-3 MOA. Did my performace improve as I kept shooting out to further distances or do I have a load developed for 400-500yds and I need to develop a better load for 200-300yds?

I can't really tinker with the load because 64gr of Swiss 1.5 is the sweet spot. Not sure exactly what to try next and thought you all may have some ideas. Thanks. Tom
 
I am very curious as to the bullet you are using. I was told the 1884's had 0.460 diameter tubes. What I do know, my 0.458" commercial cast bullets leaded and were very inaccurate. I do believe it is impossible to blow enough lube a blackpowder barrel. The more, the merrier.

I have no idea why a group would tighten up with distance. Maybe it was the weather pushing when you were pulling.
 
Hmm… what’s your sighting system look like?
The 1884 Trapdoor has the Buffington sights. So it is a ladder sight with a small aperture but very far from the eye and the front sight is a post. I shoot a 500gr cast bullet at .459. .460 and above do not shoot near as well.

What about shooting a black target versus a white target? the 200 and 300 yd targets were the black and orange reactive targets both 18inches in diameter. The 400 yd target was a 12 inch round white metal gong and the 500yd target was a white rectangle gong 24"x18". Does the eye and sights work better on a white target? Maybe something similar to what Troy wrote about a better sight picture. I am also red/green color blind, not sure if that affects my sighting abilities. I was shooting benchrest, so I don't see how I was grouping poorly at 200.
 
The 1884 Trapdoor has the Buffington sights. So it is a ladder sight with a small aperture but very far from the eye and the front sight is a post. I shoot a 500gr cast bullet at .459. .460 and above do not shoot near as well.

My 1884

ylwou7l.jpg


the rear sight

dl2XRgn.jpg



tkAy7qs.jpg


This is a very complicated sight, and I am going to claim, what you see in the Army sight designs, the influence of target shooting games. I know from my 1913 Small Arms book, and from other documents, Soldiers were shooting on round bull targets. There are 1000 yard targets in these period publications.

YIg9ddA.jpg


given the technology of the day, and the needs to qualify 1000 men or so in a day, these round bull targets, pulled up and down in the pits, became the "combat" course. Is a round bull in the middle of some khaki paper background representative of combat conditions? Not really, but it provided a means for enlisted and Officers to get trigger time. Some shooters became much better than others, and in time, the qualification course, the "combat" course became a game in itself.

And you can see how that influenced sight design. These 1884 sights are complex. Windage and elevation adjustments are very fine, which works well on a firing point, but not in the field. I have talked to Veterans of WW2, Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan. It is rare that organized shooting events happen in theater. I have pictures of a military shooting range in Iraq, the maximum distance is 100 yards. A bud of mine, Vietnam veteran, he zero'd his M14E2 at 50 yards on a 55 gallon drum. If he hit minute of oil drum, the weapon was zero'd. And improvised trash was the only practice targets around, and in a fire base, anyone firing a weapon is going to upset the rest who are going to believe there is an VC/NVA attack happening. Our last WW2 gun club veteran, he was handed an M1 carbine as he got on the troop ship. The weapon was not zero'd, in fact Sammy asked his buds where the carbine was shooting, in combat! He said he beat the rear sight dovetail with the butt of knife to drift it in the right direction. While I never asked, I don't believe anyone in his unit arrived on Iowa Jima with a sidearm that they had zero'd prior to landing. I think all of them were issued rifles, knives, etc, as they boarded the troop ship,

You can see the carry over of this trapdoor sight features in my Krag carbine

XdQhI1o.jpg



and in the M1903


NnlTBzE.jpg


The M1903 sights are not good target sights, you need a P J O'Hare micrometer for repeatable and precise elevation adjustments. And the windage marks are four MOA. You can adjust the sight in half wind marks, but anything finer than that is hit or miss. And, the tiny post front, and tiny rear aperature sights are only good against a paper target with a black bull. These sights are very hard to use in overcast conditions.

I am claiming that the target shooting game had an over sized input into US rifle design. The sights were designed for the needs of target shooters, who actually thought, combat was going to be like a shooting range. Where they could have plenty of time to dial in complex sight adjustments, without the enemy locating their positions with counter rifle fire, or artillery! And when WW1 rolled around, any head above the parapet for more than seconds, got beaned by snipers. There were thousands of hidden eyeballs, all looking for targets. If the sniper did not get you, the forward artillery observer would. And what Soldiers found in WW1 and WW2, sniping at Germans would result in the Germans returning the love with artillery shells!

I do think European rear sights tended to be more pragmatic. While the British had a target shooting ideology prior to WW1, and their Lee Enfields did have windage gauges,

VQ1Ghqh.jpg



All the pre War "Old Contemptible's" were gone in 9 months, and the Pal's in Kitchner's New Army hardly lasted longer. Attrition was so high, and firearm training was limited to teaching the men how to aim, load, and clean their rifles. There was not time to teach marksmanship. You see more pragmatic sights during the worse period of WW2 in the No 4 Mk1



ej5lMv2.jpg



The pre War sight had click adjustable elevation, but it took too long to make, and recruits had not the time to learn, nor space, to make use of click elevations. So this titling L sight with a 600 yard and 300 yard elevation peep. was installed in the middle of WW2. The British locked down the front sight with a special tool to prevent the Soldier from altering windage.


this PTR 91 sight is not a target sight, the windage knob as about a turn and a half of slack!, but it is easy to use, and easy to understand.

yRuoI0c.jpg


Soviet front sight to be very practical in up close, low light condtions. Just put what you want to shoot in the circle, for fast shooting, and if you have more time, the post is big, and in the middle. Easy to find. Another bonus, this front sight is very hard to damage.

dK0UxRV.jpg


An 03 sight is similiar to the Krag. Thin, and easy to damage, but the right width for the black bullseye's of the day.
 
The USMC did what they could with the 1903. They had a wider, taller, undercut front sight and a rear sight drift slide with one larger hole. This eliminated confusion when setting for range, brought the "battle sight" down to a more useful range, and was easier to see against tan targets... and uniforms. I doubt it was universal and the Marines got a lot of Army style rifles.

One of Henry Stebbins' co-authors said that the Mauser sight was superior, set it for the range and it would generally hit a standard target. He said his outfit never adjusted the M1 sight, they ran it all the way up to clean and all the way down for drill. Must not have been doing much shooting while he was in.
 
I am very curious as to the bullet you are using. I was told the 1884's had 0.460 diameter tubes. What I do know, my 0.458" commercial cast bullets leaded and were very inaccurate. I do believe it is impossible to blow enough lube a blackpowder barrel. The more, the merrier.

The bore diameter for the .45-70 trapdoors of all models was specified at .450", and, because the bore was reamed to final diameter, there is little variation in that dimension. The groove depth was specified as .005", which, if held, would result in a groove diameter of the specified .460" but, having measured some hundreds of the rifles and carbines, I can tell you that the average actually found is .461" - .462". Many actually measure larger than that: up to .468" in my experience, and that in bores in good condition otherwise. I believe the wide variation in groove diameter is due to lack of quality control in the rifling operation. I have found only 3 (three) original trapdoor barrels which actually measured the nominal .460" or a bit smaller (.459"). With blackpowder loads and soft lead alloys, the bullet apparently can 'bump-up' to fill the grooves for satisfactory accuracy. Unfortunately, the largest bullet which can be loaded into the cartridge and still chamber in the typical trapdoor is .461" - .462", and those of us who prefer smokeless to BP loads often cannot find a suitable bullet which will shoot at all well in a specific rifle, as smokeless typically will not cause any 'bump-up', and the bullet will be gas cut and shoot very poorly if at all under full groove diameter.

PRD1 - mhb - MIke
 
I had a ten picture limitation in the previous post, but I thought a P.J O'Hare micrometer would be of interest. Thanks to Google books.

hECoTX8.png


I have a USMC front and rear on one of my M1903's. The blade is wider, of more use, is the battle sight zero is 200 yards with the USMC front sight, instead of the 536 yards with the standard M1903 sight.

A Mauser rear sight was totally appropriate for the skill level of the average Soldier


1SR0pwA.jpg


a 300 yard zero was not unusual pre WW1

CXG0k1m.jpg


the M1917 sight was simple and well protected, however, it had a 500 yard battle sight

2zIxGyM.jpg



I really doubt any Doughboy flipped the ladder up.

I think highly of this Soviet front sight.

dK0UxRV.jpg


Close up, you just put the ring on the target, assuming you are not too excited to aim! It ought to be a good snap shooting sight. The post is in the middle and well protected by that ring. I think the function and purpose is quite obvious to the shooter.

The M1903 was well loved by the civilian shooting community and it had a single blade for a front sight. When the Garand came out with a post front sight, protected by wings, complaints were sent to the NRA that competitors were aligning one of the wings against the bull, and therefore the Garand was an awful rifle!

pR6INEi.jpeg
 
The bore diameter for the .45-70 trapdoors of all models was specified at .450", and, because the bore was reamed to final diameter, there is little variation in that dimension. The groove depth was specified as .005", which, if held, would result in a groove diameter of the specified .460" but, having measured some hundreds of the rifles and carbines, I can tell you that the average actually found is .461" - .462". Many actually measure larger than that: up to .468" in my experience, and that in bores in good condition otherwise. I believe the wide variation in groove diameter is due to lack of quality control in the rifling operation. I have found only 3 (three) original trapdoor barrels which actually measured the nominal .460" or a bit smaller (.459"). With blackpowder loads and soft lead alloys, the bullet apparently can 'bump-up' to fill the grooves for satisfactory accuracy. Unfortunately, the largest bullet which can be loaded into the cartridge and still chamber in the typical trapdoor is .461" - .462", and those of us who prefer smokeless to BP loads often cannot find a suitable bullet which will shoot at all well in a specific rifle, as smokeless typically will not cause any 'bump-up', and the bullet will be gas cut and shoot very poorly if at all under full groove diameter.

PRD1 - mhb - MIke

I guess I am going to have to slug my barrel. I gave up on shooting it, it was so inaccurate.
 
Always great history lessons here and always a ton of info from Slamfire. Really appreciate the time you put into some of your replies Slamfire.

These trapdoors seem to be quite something else. I am super impressed with what mine can do but I couldn’t imagine going into battle with one of these things with factory ammo. At least not in 1898. They were not that accurate to begin with; heavy and long for off hand shooting; they foul quickly with BP. I guess they were loading with smokeless by 1898.

I also wonder about how soldiers got chewed out for being a bad shot with one of these. Mine shoots 500gr at .459 fine but many had rifles that didn’t.
 
I guess I am going to have to slug my barrel. I gave up on shooting it, it was so inaccurate.

Good idea. It is not easy to measure the internal dimensions of the trapdoor's 3-groove barrel. I have three-point internal micrometers for the job, but they are not inexpensive. If you make a good slug, you can get a pretty accurate measurement by gently 'rolling' the slug and carefully measuring from the high points created by the driving edge of one groove and the trailing edge of the groove directly opposite across the bore. A micrometer or dial caliper can give a close enough measurement with careful use. I hope you find that yours is one of those for which a suitable bullet can be found and loaded. You can still try BP, if you haven't already, though I don't like to use the stuff in my cartridge guns, because of the need to clean the cartridge cases properly and immediately after firing.
I first discovered the inaccuracy problems with the trapdoor about 60 years ago, when my first one, which was in excellent shape with a near perfect bore, pitched the bullets sideways at 25 yards. I didn't understand the nature of the trouble then, and it took me many years to find out the truth. I had almost given up on trapdoors when I began direct measurements of the barrels, and, when I found one of the very few with a .459" groove diameter, I kept it - it shoots very well with bullets cast at .460" and 24-25 grains of 4759.
Good luck!

PRD1 - mhb - MIke
Always great history lessons here and always a ton of info from Slamfire. Really appreciate the time you put into some of your replies Slamfire.

These trapdoors seem to be quite something else. I am super impressed with what mine can do but I couldn’t imagine going into battle with one of these things with factory ammo. At least not in 1898. They were not that accurate to begin with; heavy and long for off hand shooting; they foul quickly with BP. I guess they were loading with smokeless by 1898.

I also wonder about how soldiers got chewed out for being a bad shot with one of these. Mine shoots 500gr at .459 fine but many had rifles that didn’t.
 
These trapdoors seem to be quite something else. I am super impressed with what mine can do but I couldn’t imagine going into battle with one of these things with factory ammo. At least not in 1898. They were not that accurate to begin with; heavy and long for off hand shooting; they foul quickly with BP. I guess they were loading with smokeless by 1898.

I also wonder about how soldiers got chewed out for being a bad shot with one of these. Mine shoots 500gr at .459 fine but many had rifles that didn’t.

FWIW, the non-regular units who fought in the SAW were armed with the trapdoor - except the Rough Riders, who were armed with Krag carbines (possibly because of the well-connected and well-known nature of some of the leaders and members) - and the ammunition was still loaded with BP. In fact, during the service life of the trapdoor, all issue ammunition was loaded with BP, and only the Krag rifle ammunition had smokeless powder from the start. Some Government contract ammunition for the trapdoor loaded during the WW1 era, for National Guard and State troops, security guards, etc., who still had trapdoors was loaded with smokeless.
The trapdoor-armed units in Cuba were very unhappy about the smoke clouds they made when firing on the Spanish, though the Spaniards were happy to have the same clouds to help them direct their smokeless Mauser fire. As for poor marksmanship among the troops who were issued the trapdoor, the main problem was likely the recoil, which, with the 500-grain Infantry bullet was pretty heavy - especially in prone.

PRD1 - mhb - MIke
 
FWIW, the non-regular units who fought in the SAW were armed with the trapdoor - except the Rough Riders, who were armed with Krag carbines (possibly because of the well-connected and well-known nature of some of the leaders and members) - and the ammunition was still loaded with BP. In fact, during the service life of the trapdoor, all issue ammunition was loaded with BP, and only the Krag rifle ammunition had smokeless powder from the start. Some Government contract ammunition for the trapdoor loaded during the WW1 era, for National Guard and State troops, security guards, etc., who still had trapdoors was loaded with smokeless.
The trapdoor-armed units in Cuba were very unhappy about the smoke clouds they made when firing on the Spanish, though the Spaniards were happy to have the same clouds to help them direct their smokeless Mauser fire. As for poor marksmanship among the troops who were issued the trapdoor, the main problem was likely the recoil, which, with the 500-grain Infantry bullet was pretty heavy - especially in prone.

PRD1 - mhb - MIke
Yep, you confirm that having a trapdoor during that war was not helpful. Recoil for sure was a problem but off-hand and not very accurate were compounding factors that made this rifle a major liability. Perfect for buffalo hunting.
 
Could it just be that it's "settling down", and just not dispersing at an even rate, as the spin slows down, something like that?
I don't know. We can all make theories.

One problem is, bullet manufacturer's have 300 yard/300 meter wind tunnels, but no further. I was squadded next to the Berger Ballistician who developed loads, and ran lot acceptance tests in a 300 meter windtunnel. (or was it yards?) He claimed that nothing mattered at 300 meters, and when I followed that up, cases, primers, (appropriate powders) all shot well at 300 meters. It was hard to mess up a 300 yard group. His five shot standard was 0.9 inches and he considered 1.9 inches as a bad bunch of bullets. He rejected a batch that shot above 2 something. More or less, 300 meters was not a stressing test. But, the further you go out, the more everything affects everything.

Berger has a employee who shoots 2 mile matches, and I think that is where they get their super long range feedback on their bullets.

I don't know anyone shooting bullets through a column of targets stacked from 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 yards to see if bullets are jawing. Lapua in Mesa AZ shoots 22lr bullets at 50 meters and 100 meters. And I have seen in my lot testing, the best ammunition at 50 yards did not shoot the best group at 100 yards. At the Lapua test range, you get to see the grouping of the same ten shots at 50 and 100 meters.

There may be weird things happening downrange, maybe radars will see what they are doing. I have no idea.
 
Back
Top