Longest range recorded kill

You haven't pointed out any specific examples. I am asking for such examples because Senich at no point comes with a personal opinion in his books, he only serves the facts, which in turn sometimes leads to unwanted gaps in segments of his books.

Also interesting to note it is that Martin Peglar amongst other authors uses much of Senich's work as reference in some of his books, notably in his book Out of Nowhere.

 

I think it depends a lot on what is meant by "reliably". Certainly it would be unlikely to average even 50% at that range but it was apparently possible as the quotes I later enclosed demonstrate. Indeed from what I recall from back in the 60's and 70's a lot of the long range target shooting was done with black poweder "benchrest" rifles. The document I linked earlier mentions that they often weight 20-30 lbs so they were not exactly mass produced military fire arms.

I think another site said 800 yards but I suspect these ranges are all guestimates some considerably after the fact. Another interesting tidbit in the article I linked was that in at least one battle the Union started trying to spot the powerder clouds from the snipers/sharpshooters and counter sniped with artillery.

 

Proeliator, I think this comment is unfair to Lwd. When I posted the quote it was merely for the information pertaining to the military use of scoped weapons. You were the first to comment on the 1500 yard statement not Lwd. You wrote:

Lwd was still discussing the first use of sights, I replied to clarify the intent of my original post. I stated 800 yard shots were fairly common, but there are also a number of convincing accounts of 1000 yard shots. Probably the best is from a Federal Artillery officer whose gun crews were being killed by Confederate sharpshooters, firing from a woodline he estimated to be 1000 yards distant. Since his battery was shelling the woodline trying to eliminate said sharpshooters his range estimation was probably very close. There is also the case of Pvt. Truman Head, "California Joe" of Berdan's Sharpshooters who is purported to have had a 1500 yard kill with a Sharps. So I guess it would come down to your definition of "hit a human sized target reliably". What percentage of shots taken versus hits achieved would you say is reliably? The 1000 and 1500 yard shots are the certainly the exception, but then again it comes back to what Formerjughead, Jaeger, Gebirgsjaeger and I have been arguing all along, "the individual shooter and his skill is the most important factor and if the shooter is skilled enough they make up for deficiencies in their equipment."

Furthermore, when Lwd did reply, to the 1500 yard range question, he did not state that what you posted was incorrect. He didn't take a position on one side or the other, he simply asked what you were basing your statement on, then provided three examples and links that supported the opposite position.

Lwd wrote:

 

I was in the process of writing a reply to Proeliator when you posted this, I think you will see that we are basically in agreement and thinking along the same lines.

 

Found another interesting reference in regards to long range shooting
The Rifleman's Journal: History: Long Range Shooting
some quotes:

 

Lets remember that there's a big difference between 18th and 19th century military muzzle loaders and 20th & 21st century benchrest muzzle loading target rifles.

To reliably hit a man sized target at 1500 yards with a 18th or 19th century military muzzle loader rifle would've been impossible. One has to consider that to achieve such a thing is hard even today, and it requires not only a bullet with a high BC but also propellant charges measured down to the very last milligram. Furthermore as mentioned the barrel of black powder rifles will get fowled up with each shot taken, affecting muzzle velocity, spin rate etc etc.. and therefore trajectory and accuracy. There are simply way too many variables to take into account with these old muzzle loaders to ever have any hope of hitting someone at 1500 yards with them, I mean even differences in the cloth used to wrap the ball will influence the trajectory.

As for what I define as reliably hitting something, I am talking in the order of a 75% hit rate, otherwise it aint 'reliable' in my book. But with a 19th century muzzle loader I'd be surprised if you'd be capable of hitting a human sized target at 1500 yards even 10% of the time; considering that you'd be lobbing your projectiles at the target (i.e. indirect fire), instead of aiming somewhat directly at it.

 

Indeed but how much difference were there between bmechrest black powder rifles of the latter half of the 19th century and those of the 2oth century?

That's a pretty high percentage even for modern snipers at that range. By that definition few snipers are capable of reliably hitting targets over 1,000 yards. It may depend on whether or not you count rangeing shots as well.

Indeed except under very special circumstances hitting a single man sized target at that range 10% of the time would probably be considered very good shooting.

There are examples of using rifles for indirect fire at such ranges, however if you are firng at an individual you can see it's direct fire. I think there was an example in the ACW site I linked of indirect fire at such ranges by a sniper and I believe the French used indirect rifle fire in the Franco Prussian war although, they relied on company or battalion volleys.

 

Checked some ballistics charts and found out that a well made .50 caliber round ball has a ballistic coefficient of 0.07. Next I checked the average muzzle velocity of a Kentucky long rifle, which is 380 m/s (1250 fps).

Plotting this into a ballistics calculator I get the following:


Sorta rules out the 1500 yards shots...

 

Not really. You made a fallacious assumption. They weren't using round balls. Indeed one of the last refferences I linked made a point that the developement of miniballs and similar bullets was one of the big factors in increasing the distance considered to be long range.

*** edit for ***
Looked a bit more as I was curious about some of your other assumptions.
at http://www.pyrodex.com/ the yave some data tables for black powder loads. Now these are modern "black powders" but my understanding is the big difference is that they are cleaner and leave a less corrosive residue. Looking at the data tables velocities of for .50 caliber ball runs from just under 1,600 fps to almsot 2,000 fps. Furthermore the lowest muzzle velocit given for a .50 cal is 1,266 fps and that's with a 410 gr. bullet. Note also that loadings with heavier bullets have higher velocities and that these were for the most part developed with 24" barrels (some of the data is for 26" barrels) which tend to be on the short side for period long range rifles.

 

Well we could try the same practice with the Minié ball, but it wont make much of a difference to the final conclusion really lwd:
LONG RANGE MUZZLELOADING

 

Tried a new program to get a 1500 yard zero range, plotted in the numbers for a .58 cal 480 grain Minié ball which has a BC of 0.160, and it's still a no go with the Minié, despite it having a little over twice the BC of the round ball:



Just take a look at the bullet drop alone, that is massive! We're talking howitzer trajectory here, which isn't surprising seeing as the normal muzzle velocity of of .58 cal Minié ball was a mere 1100 fps.

 

Not make much difference???
The three factors that affect range are ballistic coefficent, muzzle velocity, and bullet mass. You have underestimated all three. Furthermore since we are talking long range rifles we're talking bullets like the Whitworths or better not even miniballs. Your refference is simply not convinceing as relates to the topic at hand.

 

That's because you are still choosing data to make your point. For one thing the muzzle velocties are likely to be above 1,500 ft/sec perhaps even in excess of 2,000 ft/sec and you are using 1,100 ft/sec. Furthermore the bullets are more advanced than the minieball being longer and thus heavier.

 

Are we not talking about a shot being made in 1854 here?

In 1854 the Minié ball was the best projectile around, and the .58 cal 480 grain one fired through the std. Civil War rifle had muzzle velocity of 1100 fps according to what I've read. The ballistic coefficient is listed as 0.160 for the .58 cal Minié ball as used in the civil war.

So what exactly is it I'm not getting right here?

 

Lwd is correct the minie' ball was a huge step forward in range and accuracy.


As you can see in the above picture it was conical shaped and had a hollow base that expanded upon firing to engage the rifling, thereby imparting spin and increasing range and accuracy. The expanding base also helped seal the bore so more of the propellant gasses could act upon the bullet, imparting greater velocity. It should also be noted that it was not unusual for riflemen to use double and even triple loads of powder for longer range shots. Lwd is also correct that barrel length is a very important factor. I've noticed when shooting mine that humidity/moisture is a big factor in performance. The powder flakes have a tendancy to absorb moisture and it effects burn rate.

As an aside the most common calibers during the ACW were .58 and .577 for rifled arms and .69 for smooth bores.

 

Where did 1854 come from? I think I got lost somewhere along the way

 

It would be easier to answer what you are getting right.

First from your own reference it points out that Whitworth's work in the 1850's lead to better performance than the minieball at long ranges.

Then we're not talking about standard ACW military rifles either. So there goes the 1,100 fps. I'm not sure what the ballistic coeffients would be for the bullets in question but you are looking at higher velocities and masses.

Do note also that one kill mentioned was surveyed at over 1,500 yards. So it's not a ball park figure.

 

Price (can I call you that?), I haven't at any point been questioning any of that as I'm quite aware of it. The Minié ball was a big improvement over the round ball, there's no question about it, the BC was more than doubled (0.07 to 0.16), and so was the weight of the projectile (177 gr to 480 gr). But we're talking about hits being made at 1500 yards here; an extreme range even for the Minié ball. At that range the trajectory is akind to that of a howitzer.

As for the Withworth rifle, I understand that it fired a smaller caliber projectile, the dimensions of which I don't know. Until we have muzzle velocity, bullet weight, dimension & BC figure we can't say for sure how well the rifle performed. But I'd wager that it didn't even begin to compare with the rifles used in WW1.

 

Interestingly I came across this on another board:
Whitworth Rifle / Sharpshooters

Has some good info, like the following:

"For example, tell a group of shooters that you are going to use the 45-70 for deer hunting at 500+ yards and they will probably tell you there are better choices (after they get up off the floor from laughing). The main reason being its looping trajectory. But tell the same group that the 451 Whitworth can regularly hit a mans torso at 500+ yards and they will all nod their head in agreement, even though it has the same trajectory curve as the 45-70.

As to how the two relate ballisticly, they both use bullets of near exact weights, diameters, velocity, and ballistic coefficient, as well as powder charges and hence similar muzzle velocities. As a matter of fact, some modern day shooters of the Whitworth use bullets cast from 45-70 molds. Also, surviving accuracy tests from both the British and US governments show no advantage for the Whitworth."

 

I'm not sure either. I think Whitworth started making his rifles and bullets available about that time so that may be the source but my points about shooting at 1,000 yards and over is more in the 1860s and later. So in answer to the question you quoted no we're not really talking about a shot in 1854.