Firearm: Antique "Trapdoor Springfield" (I believe it is an 1877 model)
Caliber: .45/70 Government (best caliber ever!)
Rear Sight: Not too sure of the name, but as far as a little research tells me, it is an 1884 Buffington aperture sight.
Distance: 100 yrds.
Target Diameter: uh...it's 16" wide, and really tall (more on that later)
Date shot: First week of January, 2008
Position: Off a bench, on an improvised rest.
Additional Comments:
My dad borrowed the rifle from a friend. I don't have any actual pictures, but it is very similar to
this one. The only reason I have the picture of the target is that I went back to school (the semester was just beginning) without looking at the target. He used the orange and grapefruit as a size comparison, since he had said my group was "about the size of a grapefruit."
The rear sight, for those who are curious, looks like
this (from
this website). The site was just a
little (/sarcasm) off; using the peep sight at it's lowest setting (the open sight actually shot higher), it was still shooting about 20" high.
I don't really care about the accuracy, though. That thing was a dream to shoot and the trigger was so smooth and just the right strength (not too light and not too hard). I could tell right when it was going to fire; I had
so much fun that day! It's too bad I don't get out to the range often...I hadn't shot for months before that target, and haven't shot since.
This has the potential to be a fun thread; I want to see what you guys are using to shoot, not just the caliber! Hope there are some more antique/reproduction shooters...
As an aside to Slug: Yeah, that can be quite difficult. My dad once told me (specifically talking about an unloaded semi-auto handgun) that one should be able to rest a coin on the slide (which is rounded, mind you), and squeeze the trigger without causing the coin to fall. He really could do it, too.
PS: Group size is more a measure of precision than accuracy. Accuracy means that you are close to the center of the target. So, that rifle was very inaccurate but (somewhat, at least) precise.
Edited by jwasko, 22 February 2008 - 10:02 PM.