Parker Hale 2-bander question

Hi everyone,
I think I already know the answer to this question, but thought I'd also get some opinions from you all.

I'm trying to tweak the 100 yard accuracy with my Parker Hale 2-bander, and so I'm thinking of moving to a heavier bullet. This would mean going from my current Lyman 575213 minie (510 gr minie, which shoots pretty well in the gun already) to a heavier Parker Hale style Minie (560 gr). I'm hoping the extra mass in the PH style minie and a bit more powder will help tighten the groups a bit more, particularly at 100 yds.

I have been sitting on the Parker Hale mold that came with the gun and tried casting with it today for the first time. The minies out of this Parker Hale mold are only about .573 in diameter, whereas ordinarily I size the Lyman 575213 rounds to .576".

Do you think the Parker Hale minie going to be too undersized for what I want it to do? Should I just get the Lyman 575213PH mold and size to .576 for a tighter fit in the bore?

For what it's worth, the Parker Hale mold threw bullets today in the 547-550 grain range, whereas the Lyman 575213PH is listed as a 566 grain minie.

I did manage to get to the range tonight before dark and shot four groups of five at 100 yds (well, actually 96 yards since our frames got moved in a bit). Groups were okay, nothing to brag about, but I was shooting off cheap bags rather than my good rest. Started with 45 gr of 3F, groups were a tad high, might drop the powder a bit and move back to a portable bench at a genuine 100 yds. I'd say the groups averaged about 5" without much effort on my part.

What I'm hoping is that heavier minies will tighten the groups at 100 yds, especially given the relatively fast 1:48 twist in the P58 rifling. other thoughts?

So even though I'm pretty sure I'm going to need the Lyman mold, I just wanted to see what folks here thought about the sizing issue before spending the cash.

thanks everyone,
Jim

ps. I also don't want to grind down the base plug on my 575213 mold, would rather keep that intact in case I want to go back to it later.

Aging eyes: ongoing

After falling apart during the styrofoam cups event on Sunday morning (zero for . . . [cough] nine), I decided to make haste to my optician for some vision expertise. I can tell you that everything was a blur during that event--and I do mean EVERYTHING, targets, front sight, rear sight, everything. What concerned me most was the apparent double vision I had of the targets themselves . . . I couldn't blink them straight, I couldn't line up the front sight on a single isolated cup, nothing. That's never happened to me before. So off I went.

The optician I go to is a good one, and he's got several other customers who shoot. Half the problem he suggested was not having the right color shooting glasses to make the targets pop out of the green background a bit more. That made sense to me, so we talked about shooting glasses. We also talked about the need to focus on the front sight with my dominant (right eye). Ordinarily I've been shooting with bifocal contact lenses and clear non-prescription shooting glasses.

He suggested dropping down a diopter in my right contact lens and wearing a non-bifocal lens in that eye. He predicted that would give me good focus on the front sight at around 30 inches or thereabouts. So he gave me a couple of -3.75 lenses to try (my normal prescription is -4.75) in the right eye, with the instructions to keep my normal bifocal -4.75 in the left eye.

And I bought a pair of Bolle sport glasses with 4 different colored lens inserts: yellow, light brown, vermillion, and a polarized set for driving. These are polycarbonate so should work for shooting; he also sells the Wiley X brand but did not have any in stock, so I went with the Bolle. The idea here is to see if I can get the target image as sharp as possible against the various backgrounds and in different light conditions.

Went to the range yesterday morning before the rains came--put in the weaker contact lens in my right eye, wore the yellow lenses (cloudy conditions) in the shooting glasses, and shot 20 or so rounds at paper.

Results were encouraging: My first target put three just outside the black in one big hole; the second five shots were kind of all over; and the last ten shots put a number in the black.

Then I shot a half dozen or so shots plinking at blocks of wood against the backstop. This was the best thing I did: I probably hit 2 out of 3 shots on average for about ten shots total.

So hopefully this will be the next step in trying to figure out how to improve my musket shooting with aging eyes. The rains came a bit too quickly yesterday to shoot anymore at clays, but I'm going to make up some hanging clays to try with the vermilion lenses, which I understand really accentuate the orange. I'll let you know how that goes.

you can't hit what you can't see . . .

Caldwell Rock front rest on sale at Cabelas

Just ran across this sale, the Caldwell Rock BR 1000 is on sale at Cabelas for $89. Normally this lists for $199 and tends to sell online for $160-170, so this is a good deal. Here's the info:

Caldwell® Rock BR™ 1000 Shooting Rest

• Magnum size for heavy rifles and extreme-distance shooting
• Massive, 24-lb. frame supported by a wide 18" footprint
• Precision, ball-bearing elevation system
• Includes two forend bags

Unleash the full potential of your rifle and ammunition. The the magnum-sized BR 1000 is extra wide and heavy, perfect for taming hard-hitting long-range rifles. With features like a fine-adjustment ball-bearing elevation system, windage-adjustable cradle and customizable bag tensioning, it's built to meet the high expectations of competitive bench-rest shooters. The two-stage elevation adjustment reaches up to 11-1/2". It includes a 3" three-lobe bag and a 5" three-lobe bag. Stable, recoil-soaking 18" cast-iron footprint. Long-life stainless steel components. Accepts any of the Caldwell Deluxe front rest bags.
Weight: 24 lbs.

This would probably make a pretty decent front rest for muzzleloaders, combined with a rear bag would be a nice set up. There are better rests out there, but they cost $500-700 and up. I think this particular rest has been discontinued by Caldwell, so now's the time to get it.

The aging eyes saga continues

Been working on my shooting using a CZ 452 .22lr trainer with open iron sights, shooting 50 foot NRA targets indoors. With my normal contacts it was pretty rough; contacts with reading glasses not much better; things improved a bit with bifocal contact lenses. Today, I shot with my new eyeglasses, which have progressive lenses.

Here's the target I shot. I'm pretty pleased with the results: I could see the front sight pretty well, and as I worked on a consistent sight picture, the progressive lenses helped me maintain a consistent cheek weld as I worked to put the front sight into sharpest focus (there is a sweet spot where the front sight is clearest). This is a benefit of the progressive lenses that had not occurred to me.

Now the problem will be getting shooting glasses in polycarbonate safety lenses, especially for the carbine--those caps really explode off the nipple of the Maynard. Polycarbonate won't be cheap. But I'm thinking that my musket shooting will improve pretty dramatically by switching over to eyeglasses versus sticking with contact lenses and shooting glasses.

Open sights and aging eyes

I made a discovery this week when the muzzleloading deer season started--I'm blind as a bat when it comes to seeing my musket sights. What I really learned was that I can see the front sight when I put my reading glasses on (my eyes went to hell in the last six months). Voila! I can see the front sight.

Which led me to spend the last day or two researching Rx shooting glasses, aperture suction-cup thingies, etc etc. I should have stayed in skirmishing when I was young and able-bodied; now I am decrepit and can't see straight.

I suspect my eye issues are partly explain why I shot the carbine (with a peep) better than my two-bander this past season.

I like what Jon said--I wish I could have last season back knowing what I know now. But at least I've got a game plan for my musket for this next season.

Jim

ps. here's a cool link: http://www.starreloaders.com/edhall/nwongmain/eyeguide.html . Check out the links to his other topics.

Fun Shoot in Monroe, NY

Walt and I went to a Muzzleloading Fun Shoot today at a local club. What a ball! We set up 25 targets at various distances, ranging from 7 yards to 55 yards. Targets were quite an assortment...everything from metal gongs, to a length of chain, to wooden match sticks. There were drinking straws, balloons, playing cards (on their EDGE!), birthday candles and the like. The entrance fee included lunch, and all who entered were assured to go home with a prize or two. Prizes...also a cool variety...of meat! Chickens, steaks, hams, bacon and eggs, etc. It's sad that there were only 10 of us who signed up...but it was a fun, informal and all around good time. Most of the guys were shooting round ball, while Walt and I brought our muskets. In the photo are: Walt, Larry Witko (the organizer), my brother John Bailey and myself. The photographer was Mikey--who took the photo with his Nintendo DSi videogame! Walt hit the most targets out of everyone...I didn't do bad...hit about half of them. Anybody ever try to put a .58 cal minie ball inside the "hole" of a pretzel...without breaking the pretzel??

Analyzing misses

Got out for another hour or so this afternoon to shoot some 100 yard targets with the Maynard. Here is the best of the bunch:


Don't know what to make of that group of four that fell into the seven and six rings. I have a shot string chart pulled from somewhere off the net, I think originally from an army shooting manual. Here's what it says:

click to enlarge

What do any of you think? jerking the trigger is a definite possibility, but the idea of having too large a peep near the eye (6 o'clock string) is also possible. I'm still trying to figure out the optimal place to cheek the gun for a consistent look through the peep. thoughts??