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.

 

[Formidilosus]

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

Will do sir.

My limited experience with TC, Traditiisn, etc and patched round balls was about 5-6” for ten shots at 100 yards with their terrible Kentucky style sights. I fully expect 4 MOA or under for ten round groups with a quality rifle.
If it does that, getting constant hits at 200 yards and farther will be the major shooting task. Well, that and loading and firing at a pace that resembles something other than a morbidly obese, stub handed, asthmatic pirate…

 

[Shadow14]

Ive been eyeing those Kibler SMR's for some time now and am considering pulling the trigger. It would be my first build but I love the history and beauty of these 18th/ealry19th century flintlocks and am really wanting to get into it. I am in my late 20s and dont have but 1 friend who is even slightly interested in these right now. A .45 would be sufficient for me here in North GA though it might be a little light for bear....

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The rmc ec-loader is the ticket for rapid shooting. Works best with conicals, then sabots, then in patched round balls, but imo anything is better than a patched round ball.

 

[HighUintas]

Will do sir.

My limited experience with TC, Traditiisn, etc and patched round balls was about 5-6” for ten shots at 100 yards with their terrible Kentucky style sights. I fully expect 4 MOA or under for ten round groups with a quality rifle.
If it does that, getting constant hits at 200 yards and farther will be the major shooting task. Well, that and loading and firing at a pace that resembles something other than a morbidly obese, stub handed, asthmatic pirate…

I don't think you'll have any problem doing sub 3moa at 100 after getting your sights figured out/customized.

If you can reliably do hits on a 10" plate at 200 with a ball, you've arrived haha.

FYI https://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/web_apps/rb_ballistics.html

The caliber is actual ball size, not bore diameter. So my .58 using 0.570 balls, the input is 0.570. the calculator seems to be fairly accurate from what I've seen. A round ball is ballistically like a friggin rock.

 

[HighUintas]

Also, for anyone interested, this is supposedly superb patch material that a few competition guys use. They say they've never burned through any.



Also, Joann's bull denim, 12 oz denim, and duck canvas are all good and very thick. All between 0.019-0.023 after being washed and when measured compressing between jaws in Hornady calibers as hard as I can with thumb and pointer finger.

Pocket drill is supposedly good too, but I haven't used it. It is thinner than the first three listed.

I mainly use mink oil saturated 12oz denim, but I've shot up to 150gr 2f in my 58 and didn't see any burn through.

 

[webhak]

Flint only for me on black powder for about 35 years. Here’s my custom 54. My dad is a professional gunmaker and grew up in that world shooting comps every week as a kid. View attachment 800491View attachment 800492

Beautiful rifle!

 

[wyogoat]

Thanks! It’s a shooter too. I have the same style build (JP Beck) in a .40 and it’s a same hole gun. That’s my match rifle.
Dad is currently building me a designated match rifle in .40 with a 46 inch barrel modeled after the Lanning Big Warrior rifle.

 

[RockAndSage]

Will do sir.

My limited experience with TC, Traditiisn, etc and patched round balls was about 5-6” for ten shots at 100 yards with their terrible Kentucky style sights. I fully expect 4 MOA or under for ten round groups with a quality rifle.
If it does that, getting constant hits at 200 yards and farther will be the major shooting task. Well, that and loading and firing at a pace that resembles something other than a morbidly obese, stub handed, asthmatic pirate…

If firing rate is as big of a concern as it seems to be, along with remaining period-correct, loading blocks that hold the ball and patch pre-staged can speed things up quite a bit:

Accouterments - Curly Maple Loading Blocks, Standard

Check out the deal on Accouterments - Curly Maple Loading Blocks, Standard at Crazy Crow Trading Post

www.crazycrow.com

There are also various types of crowns you can have cut into the muzzle that make starting the bullet easier, including some that can allow for not using the ball starter at all.

 

[Formidilosus]

If firing rate is as big of a concern as it seems to be, along with remaining period-correct, loading blocks that hold the ball and patch pre-staged can speed things up quite a bit:

Accouterments - Curly Maple Loading Blocks, Standard

Check out the deal on Accouterments - Curly Maple Loading Blocks, Standard at Crazy Crow Trading Post

www.crazycrow.com

Appreciate it- I got a couple last month.

And several ideas for non-modern quick loaders, etc.

There are also various types of crowns you can have cut into the muzzle that make starting the bullet easier, including some that can allow for not using the ball starter at all.

Yes sir. I will look at coning/angled crown if needed.

 

[Olsolitaire1]

Stepped away for a few days and wow lots of talk and interest to catch up on. First things frist,

Those are fantastic! What calibers area they?

I've wanted a jj Henry trade rifle for awhile. There's a couple of nice looking ones in a Hawken rifle book (Hanson) that I'd like to make a copy of. Who built yours?

I'm unsure if my next one will be an early Hawken (I'm a fan growing up near STL) or if I'll do a long .36 flint. I need a small game getter as my only flintlock is a .58

Both rifles are 54 cal.s with 38" barrels. The trade gun is a smooth bore in 20 gauge and shoots a 62 cal. round ball.

Who made the iron mounted JJ Henry for you?

This was built by James Hanchett of WY., he had all the actual measurements, not sure if he is still building rifles. I seen one like mine was sold last week at Track of the Wolf. Now a fact on the actual rifle, it is in the Smithsonian collection where it was listed as a iron mounted J.J.Henry & Son trade rifle, that statement had been published in several books. There was always speculation that it was NOT a Henry. It has a Henry lock and barrel. It doesn't fit the orders from the American Fur Company descriptions to J.Henry in the 1830's. There is another maker mark on it, now it has been determined that it was made in the Salem North Carolian school of rifle builders, still a beauty of a rifle. (when I get back home I will post up that info to share)

Unfortunately, you're probably not going to find what you're looking for in the Rokslide muzzleloader section, especially at the level you're wanting. But there are a few people here who are very good and knowledgeable with traditional guns. As was mentioned, other forums will be where to look.

People at that level do exist though, as I've seen them shoot and was mentored by one as a young kid. But the challenge will be finding them.

Most were at their peak back in the 1980s, when the interest in traditional muzzleloaders and buckskinning/rendezvous competitions was also at its peak. Interest back then having been fueled with a lot of the mountainman movies that came out of Hollywood in the 70s and 80s, like Jeremiah Johnson, etc. The same people that gravitated towards that were partially siphoned off by the Civil War reenactments that picked up in the late 80s and early 1990s, but the cowboy action shooting really drove one of the final nails in the coffins of the rendezvous and buckskinning community. When you used to have 200 family camps show up for a rendezvous (like a living history/reenactment, with a shooting competition and traders' row for fun), you now might get 15, with far fewer events each year.

Unfortunately, that's where the largest concentration of really elite knowledge was located, in maximizing accuracy of traditional flintlocks: pre-internet people that have largely aged out of a dying community. There are still a few around though, and @HighUintas recommendation for the American Longrifle Forum is excellent.

I can tell you from personal experience, guys had their flintlocks tuned up to be indistinguishably fast to the naked eye as a percussion rifle - no delay in firing after the hammer drops at all. And I've seen those guys drop silhouettes out past 800 yards with those guns. It can be done.

The biggest variables in accuracy include patch materials, patch thicknesses, consistency in patch lubrication, ball diameter, deformation of the pure-lead bullet during loading, powder charge consistency (volumetric vs weight), consistency in grain size of powder, consistency in pressure of seating the bullet over the powder charge and compression of that powder, and more. It's all very doable, but just a matter of isolating each variable for as much consistency as possible.

Looks like I am part of this old school revival of muzzleloaders because of, yep Jeremiah Jonhson. I went down the hole then. I started getting into buck skinning as it was termed back then. Not only dressing the part but shooting was serious stuff. I didn't want to just dress up but wanted to learn the history and do it as close as possible as it would have been done during the western fur trade. This led to what guns did they have and how did they use they in the mountains. This then pushed me into research at fur company ledgers and journals of the trappers. It all introduced me to others of like sprite to join the American Mountain Men Association. Became a living history reenactor, actually used all the research knowledge in the field under all conditions to see if it worked. I have not been kind to my rifles but they have served me well. I have taken plenty of game, one shot one kill, accept on buffalo took two.

The shooting that was done during the 70's 80's 90's was not alot of paper targets, more of what was call novelty shoots. Targets such as raw eggs, you miss you eat it, playing cards, X of a slab, length of trap chain hanging, the candle at night and much more. One historical one was shooting a tin cup off of a pumpkin or watermelon, Joe meek at a 1830's rendezvous shot a tin cup off of another trapper's head. So yes performance of our rifles was accurate, but you are not going to find all kinds of technical date on the internet. You have to learn what your rifle likes, what size/patch combo, what size powder and how many grains. This is what makes flintlocks so much FUN. Inlines are NOT muzzleloaders in my world

"most people can barely get a flintlock to fire" Thats because they don't have a quality lock. Those TC and the like are not quality locks. Today the best options are L&R Locks or Davis (looks like Kibler makes a fine lock) Then the lock needs to be tuned, taken apart polished every moving part just enough by hand. When you have a fine-tuned lock a good hard frizzen and a good flint, it will go off every time and fast. I can hold my rifle upside down and it will fire as normal (another contest) Then a good quality barrel.

Going to stop here for now.