Any flintlock hunters around here?

[Formidilosus]

What has piqued your interest in flintlocks recently, if you don't mind me asking?

Always has interested me, however a conversation with some guys about 17th and 18th century arms and capabilities started me down it again a couple months ago. History and how we got to where we are is extremely important, and I tend to go pretty deep in the rabbit hole with things- but I can’t/won’t do multiple new things at a time. The last hole was/is asiatic archery. That started seriously in 2017, and I’ve finally got a solid handle on it.

That several states have MZ seasons and only allow traditional Muzzleloaders- as they should, and well…. I’ll be doing a Kibler soon and seeing what can be made of it.

 

[RockAndSage]

@HighUintas and @RockAndSage

I have been on ALR forum quite a bit reading. Appreciate the info. I’ve looked hard on ALR and MZ forum for info, but as you say there doesn’t seem to be much, and generally there is often a negative reaction/response to people asking about increasing range/speed/etc. Not a big deal.

That's unfortunate you're getting that kind of reaction. Maybe it's ground that just needs to be re-ploughed, without preconceived notions. I'd enjoy seeing what you could do in dialing in a flintlock.

The question of building up and accurizing a load brought back a few 35 year-old memories from when I worked up my competition load in my teens, for a percussion rifle. I'll share what I remember, hopefully there might be some tidbits that could be good reference.

Overall, I got my group sizes down to about 4 inches at 100 yards, which wasn't bad. Loads were worked up in 5 grain increments, settling on a charge of 65gr - which was definitely on the lighter side compared to the charges most people shot out of a .54cal, with patched round-ball. Zero idea on velocities, we couldn't have afforded a chrono then. But consistency was a huge part of the accuracy I got, and we were shooting at steel, so terminal ballistics weren't a concern either.

I experimented with patches quite a bit - this yielded probably half of my accuracy imporovements, but it ran counter to what was considered normal back then. I can't remember the exact thickness, but what I found worked best was not the tightest combo of patch and ball, which was contrary to what I'd expected was necessary. Guys at the National Muzzleloading Rifle Championships had been written about using mallets on their starters, and using steel ramrods to drive home bullets over thin patches. But I found that the harder the start for me (even without using a mallet), the more bullet deformation was visible after using the small nub on the starter. And the poorer the accuracy came with it.

So, bullet deformation began being something I focused on.

That led to experimenting with how hard I seated the bullet over the powder at the very bottom. How you load with the ramrod does matter. I couldn't come up with any kind of specific, measurable force on that, as I got the best results in just gently but firmly pushing the patched ball all the way down, without striking it with the ramrod. You'll commonly see people kinda whack the bullet down with each down-motion, and also do the final seating of their ball by "tossing" the ramrod down the barrel, and finish when it kind of "bounces" back up. That bounce is a real thing, and does tell you the bullet's firmly seated over the powder - it won't bounce back in that manner until its seated firmly. But I discovered/inferred that it was also deforming my bullets, as doing that resulted in poorer accuracy for me.

Muzzleloaders need pure, soft lead, not tire weights or other harder alloyed lead (never got a good explanation why, but it's what "everybody knows", so it may also be worth questioning), and it's easy to cause deformation. I do think that I was getting good accuracy by being at the other end of the spectrum of the NMLRA competitors with patch and ball combos - I think they were deforming their balls into slugs into the rifling by malleting them, with thin patches. I got best performance by doing everything I could to keep them as round as possible.

As part of that, I discovered that narrower bullets and thicker patches worked better for me. They allowed for an easier load, but I also think they sealed better and more consistently - muzzleloader rifling tends to have lands standing out much more pronounced than on cartridge guns, and thin patches don't seem to make it to the bottom of the groove. The thinner patches also seemed to get cut up worse on the lands during loading and firing.

On a clean, swabbed barrel, the powder, patch, and ball occupies a specific volume of the bore - I marked my ramrod to show exactly where that Loaded mark was. It's good standard practice, to help determine if the gun is loaded, if you dry-balled, or double-charged or double-balled too. But in my case, it was instructive about fouling volume as well. After about 3 rounds, that gentle/firm "push" seating not only became harder, but that ramrod mark would be a bit above the muzzle of the barrel, which was the extra fouling occupying that bore that got pushed down beneath the ball. By swabbing the bore with a couple of cleaning patches covered in alcohol after every 3rd round, it kept loading easy for that firm push, and kept accuracy and consistency higher. Beyond that between swabbings and it just required more force, and got poorer accuracy.

The final tip that's coming to mind is a bit of arcana, but I did find that I did seem to get a slight bump in accuracy by making sure the weave of the patch material was running in the exact same direction every time.

If I were to take up this challenge again, the most interesting areas to experiment with would be different patch materials, different patch lubes, wad patches between powder and bullet-patch, and harder bullets. There's a lot that can be experimented with while being strictly period-correct, but straying out that a bit could also yield some interesting results.

 

[RockAndSage]

I thought about the age and pop culture aspect after my post. Now, we've got a lot of mountain hunting and gamer shooting being shown as the absolute cool thing to do.... That's what the majority of young people are doing and striving for that are in this world.

Those 70-90 year olds? They were wishing they could be Jeremiah Johnson back in 1980. They were good then and are now, but very few are schlepping their gun around the mountains worrying about being able to get a follow up shot loaded in 10 seconds haha.

Probably ones of the coolest guys I've met, Herb Troester, over 90, helped me build my first flintlock. That guy can shoot. 2" groups at 100 with a flint, very regularly. He unfortunately messed up his spine a couple of years ago because he shot too big a charge on a 58. It was pretty big.... Maybe 180gr or something. Since then he's had to have spinal surgery and can't build much now. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable in the west on original Hawken rifles. He's handled and measured quite a few, including Kit Carson and Jim Bridger's.

That's a life well-lived. If I ever have to go in for spinal surgery, may it be because I was shooting something capable of dropping a rhino.

 

[RockAndSage]

Mine is a german silver front post, with the rear filed at a negative angle rather than perpendicular so that light doesn't reflect back towards me, but also has the top 1/32" filed and polished at a 45* away from me to catch light and act as a bead. It is supposed to be very visible in low light and many times is, but seems like I have to polish it too often for that to work.

View attachment 821737

This is a seriously cool looking rifle, but I'm coming up empty on how you're getting that metal color without rust, as it looks bare and uncoated.

 

[HighUintas]

Always has interested me, however a conversation with some guys about 17th and 18th century arms and capabilities started me down it again a couple months ago. History and how we got to where we are is extremely important, and I tend to go pretty deep in the rabbit hole with things- but I can’t/won’t do multiple new things at a time. The last hole was/is asiatic archery. That started seriously in 2017, and I’ve finally got a solid handle on it.

That several states have MZ seasons and only allow traditional Muzzleloaders- as they should, and well…. I’ll be doing a Kibler soon and seeing what can be made of it.

I'm glad to hear it. More than it just being enjoyable to shoot a flintlock, all the history behind rifles; what they were and why and how they became what they are now is incredibly interesting.

The most unfortunate part is that it has the potential to completely die and become as obscure as Asiatic archery due to the majority of participants being older, young people not being as interested in history, and most of the parts suppliers being older, family run businesses. Luckily, it seems Jim Kibler has done a great job of making a the highest quality and easiest to put together kit available a viable business. His seem to be a gateway drug to many and he holds historical accuracy as one of the utmost important parts of his rifles, which are both good things. The early 19th century in my opinion is when functional art largely died, as far as firearms go. The Hawken rifle and others like it took a more utilitarian approach, although they did make a few presentation pieces. Look up the Atchison Hawken rifle... Pretty interesting piece compared to their others.

Which one of Kiblers are you considering? I'd really like to get a Woodsrunner since it would be the easiest to tote around the mountains, but I think the heel drop may be more than the colonial. An English sporting rifle would be most suitable for shoot ability and mountain carry. They're shorter and have a wider butt with less heel drop. I highly suggest you also look into Rod England's Alexander Henry kits. I think his may only be in percussion, but the locks are reported to be extremely high quality and they would be suitable for longer range with the appropriate sights if you're inclined. There's also Jim Chambers English rifle, which is flintlock.

I suffer from the same issue... I get obsessed with whatever it is I'm learning and dive in deeply, but I also have a hard time letting go when I want to learn something new. Too many hobbies, too little time.

 

[HighUintas]

This is a seriously cool looking rifle, but I'm coming up empty on how you're getting that metal color without rust, as it looks bare and uncoated.

I first finished it to 400grit wet/dry and then went over it with a gray 3m pad. It gives it a softer look, almost like bead blast. Then I used Birchwood Casey brass black to darken it and then rubbed it back a bit. The goal was somewhat of a French gray, or at least something a little darker so I don't spook game from a mile. I also buffed it with wax to tone down the shine. It is getting a bit of rust in various spots due to holding it while I'm hunting. But I'll leave it and hope it turns dark at some point.

The gun I modeled off of was built for William Clark by Philip Creamer. Beautiful rifle. It had a mix of English and American influences and had all bright steel. However, the wrought iron they used apparently didn't tend to surface rust as easily as the steel alloy these parts are made from.

I need to learn to engrave so I can finish the project. I'll probably give the metal a slight patina after engraving.

 

[RockAndSage]

I first finished it to 400grit wet/dry and then went over it with a gray 3m pad. It gives it a softer look, almost like bead blast. Then I used Birchwood Casey brass black to darken it and then rubbed it back a bit. The goal was somewhat of a French gray, or at least something a little darker so I don't spook game from a mile. I also buffed it with wax to tone down the shine. It is getting a bit of rust in various spots due to holding it while I'm hunting. But I'll leave it and hope it turns dark at some point.

The gun I modeled off of was built for William Clark by Philip Creamer. Beautiful rifle. It had a mix of English and American influences and had all bright steel. However, the wrought iron they used apparently didn't tend to surface rust as easily as the steel alloy these parts are made from.

I need to learn to engrave so I can finish the project. I'll probably give the metal a slight patina after engraving.

That gun just keeps getting cooler, thanks for sharing the info.

The point you made about parts suppliers being older family-run businesses is a big deal. All my muzzleloading experience was as a kid, then went to college, DC, a ton of work overseas, then back to the real world about 10 years ago to start a business, get married, etc. And finally got back into hunting, and wanted to pursue some muzzleloader muleys. Of course, I turn to Dixie Gun Works to find a kit gun...and find almost nothing but ghosts. When I was a kid it was like the Sears catalog, 20 or 30 kit rifles to choose from. Now there's virtually nothing out there. Good to see someone like Kibler has kept it alive.

 

[Formidilosus]

The most unfortunate part is that it has the potential to completely die and become as obscure as Asiatic archery due to the majority of participants being older, young people not being as interested in history, and most of the parts suppliers being older, family run businesses.

I know nothing, but it seems to me, that it already has largely died. Reading and watching videos, it has all the signs of a dying endeavor.

Luckily, it seems Jim Kibler has done a great job of making a the highest quality and easiest to put together kit available a viable business. His seem to be a gateway drug to many and he holds historical accuracy as one of the utmost important parts of his rifles, which are both good things. The early 19th century in my opinion is when functional art largely died, as far as firearms go. The Hawken rifle and others like it took a more utilitarian approach, although they did make a few presentation pieces. Look up the Atchison Hawken rifle... Pretty interesting piece compared to their others.

The Atchison rifle is solid. I’m not all the interested in precision rifles at this point, but there are some near ones for sure.

Which one of Kiblers are you considering? I'd really like to get a Woodsrunner since it would be the easiest to tote around the mountains, but I think the heel drop may be more than the colonial.

It will be between the Colonial and the Woodsrunner. I also would throw the Southern Mountain Rifle in there, but I need a .50 cal. It’s going to be interesting because I do not think it will take long for me to start modifying it based on use.

An English sporting rifle would be most suitable for shoot ability and mountain carry. They're shorter and have a wider butt with less heel drop.

They do look good as well.

I highly suggest you also look into Rod England's Alexander Henry kits. I think his may only be in percussion, but the locks are reported to be extremely high quality and they would be suitable for longer range with the appropriate sights if you're inclined. There's also Jim Chambers English rifle, which is flintlock.

Will do, though I am after a flintlock.

I suffer from the same issue... I get obsessed with whatever it is I'm learning and dive in deeply, but I also have a hard time letting go when I want to learn something new. Too many hobbies, too little time.

Haha. We’ll see. If I get less than 1,000 shots from it this year, I’ll be slacking.

 

[HighUintas]

I know nothing, but it seems to me, that it already has largely died. Reading and watching videos, it has all the signs of a dying endeavor.




It will be between the Colonial and the Woodsrunner. I also would throw the Southern Mountain Rifle in there, but I need a .50 cal. It’s going to be interesting because I do not think it will take long for me to start modifying it based on use.




Haha. We’ll see. If I get less than 1,000 shots from it this year, I’ll be slacking.

There's quite a few workshops, etc over in the Midwest and East for learning various building aspects and there's a lot of shows over there too. As far as shooting events go, I don't have much knowledge on that.

A 54 (min round ball legal for elk in Utah) that is cut down to 32-34" would be neat. My 36" is manageable in the mountains but not as nice to carry as a shorter rifle.

Please post a thread after you get one to document your progress. I'm interested in following and seeing what you can squeeze out of it. And if ever around Utah shooting it, let me know. I rarely have a chance to get out to shoot flintlock with anyone

 

[RockAndSage]

That's unfortunate you're getting that kind of reaction. Maybe it's ground that just needs to be re-ploughed, without preconceived notions. I'd enjoy seeing what you could do in dialing in a flintlock.

The question of building up and accurizing a load brought back a few 35 year-old memories from when I worked up my competition load in my teens, for a percussion rifle. I'll share what I remember, hopefully there might be some tidbits that could be good reference.

Overall, I got my group sizes down to about 4 inches at 100 yards, which wasn't bad. Loads were worked up in 5 grain increments, settling on a charge of 65gr - which was definitely on the lighter side compared to the charges most people shot out of a .54cal, with patched round-ball. Zero idea on velocities, we couldn't have afforded a chrono then. But consistency was a huge part of the accuracy I got, and we were shooting at steel, so terminal ballistics weren't a concern either.

I experimented with patches quite a bit - this yielded probably half of my accuracy imporovements, but it ran counter to what was considered normal back then. I can't remember the exact thickness, but what I found worked best was not the tightest combo of patch and ball, which was contrary to what I'd expected was necessary. Guys at the National Muzzleloading Rifle Championships had been written about using mallets on their starters, and using steel ramrods to drive home bullets over thin patches. But I found that the harder the start for me (even without using a mallet), the more bullet deformation was visible after using the small nub on the starter. And the poorer the accuracy came with it.

So, bullet deformation began being something I focused on.

That led to experimenting with how hard I seated the bullet over the powder at the very bottom. How you load with the ramrod does matter. I couldn't come up with any kind of specific, measurable force on that, as I got the best results in just gently but firmly pushing the patched ball all the way down, without striking it with the ramrod. You'll commonly see people kinda whack the bullet down with each down-motion, and also do the final seating of their ball by "tossing" the ramrod down the barrel, and finish when it kind of "bounces" back up. That bounce is a real thing, and does tell you the bullet's firmly seated over the powder - it won't bounce back in that manner until its seated firmly. But I discovered/inferred that it was also deforming my bullets, as doing that resulted in poorer accuracy for me.

Muzzleloaders need pure, soft lead, not tire weights or other harder alloyed lead (never got a good explanation why, but it's what "everybody knows", so it may also be worth questioning), and it's easy to cause deformation. I do think that I was getting good accuracy by being at the other end of the spectrum of the NMLRA competitors with patch and ball combos - I think they were deforming their balls into slugs into the rifling by malleting them, with thin patches. I got best performance by doing everything I could to keep them as round as possible.

As part of that, I discovered that narrower bullets and thicker patches worked better for me. They allowed for an easier load, but I also think they sealed better and more consistently - muzzleloader rifling tends to have lands standing out much more pronounced than on cartridge guns, and thin patches don't seem to make it to the bottom of the groove. The thinner patches also seemed to get cut up worse on the lands during loading and firing.

On a clean, swabbed barrel, the powder, patch, and ball occupies a specific volume of the bore - I marked my ramrod to show exactly where that Loaded mark was. It's good standard practice, to help determine if the gun is loaded, if you dry-balled, or double-charged or double-balled too. But in my case, it was instructive about fouling volume as well. After about 3 rounds, that gentle/firm "push" seating not only became harder, but that ramrod mark would be a bit above the muzzle of the barrel, which was the extra fouling occupying that bore that got pushed down beneath the ball. By swabbing the bore with a couple of cleaning patches covered in alcohol after every 3rd round, it kept loading easy for that firm push, and kept accuracy and consistency higher. Beyond that between swabbings and it just required more force, and got poorer accuracy.

The final tip that's coming to mind is a bit of arcana, but I did find that I did seem to get a slight bump in accuracy by making sure the weave of the patch material was running in the exact same direction every time.

If I were to take up this challenge again, the most interesting areas to experiment with would be different patch materials, different patch lubes, wad patches between powder and bullet-patch, and harder bullets. There's a lot that can be experimented with while being strictly period-correct, but straying out that a bit could also yield some interesting results.

One more tidbit on accuracy I remembered this morning: I learned not to use pre-cut patches. The reason is that it's difficult to get them perfectly centered under the ball when you start them.

The way I patched my bullets was to just use long strips of patch material - place that over the muzzle, start the ball with just the nub on the starter, then use a patch knife to cut the excess off. It created uniform patches, perfectly centered under the ball every time.

The patch strip, knife, and starter were all attached to the strap of my possibles bag, with knife and starter tucked into their own little leather pouches, and also attached with a thong. Everything was nice and handy placed like that, and fairly secure, rather than digging around in the bottom of the possibles bag for different things.