2band v 3band Enfield 100yard target board

[sheepsfoot2]

hello all..can anybody tell me...is there an advantage with the 39 inch barrel over the 33, for offhand shooting.. does the extra 6in make a difference on balance...keeping that front sight from wavering off the target....i know we don't have to worry about cavalry charges...or burning the soldiers ears in the front rank...well i dont anyway.... any help would be appreciated...theres a local auction comming up with an original 53 Enfield vgcon...vg bore.
sheepsfoot2

[Norm Gibson, 4901V]

Confederate sharpshooters were issued the Enfield rifle first and the Enfield rifled musket as a second choice. This may have more to do with the scouting duties of the sharpshooters.

[Muley Gil]

I believe that more 2 band rifles are used by members of the N-SSA than are the 3 band rifle muskets. The rifles have heavier, stiffer barrels and balance better for most shooters.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Other than the difference in weight, there’s not much of any difference in the accuracy between a 39-inch barrel and a 33-inch, if the rate of twist is the same. Provided the rate of twist is the same as is the bullet and propellant, a shorter barrel has less effect on the bullet’s trajectory though the shorter barrel does increase the recoil. Since you’re interested in a original P/53 Enfield rifle musket, it’s rate of twist is rather slow at one turn in 78-inches, while the P/58 Navy rifle or P/60-61 Army rifle has a faster rate of twist, at one turn in 48-inches, requiring a heavier bullet to keep it from stripping out of the rifling or as it was formerly described "tripping over the grooves."

Of course, that’s not to suggest that some people don’t use the same bullet and powder charge in each, most of the skirmisher who shoot the shorter rifles are often a little older in age if only because after age 40 it gets harder and harder to see the front sight as crisply on longer barrelled guns than on shorter barreled guns. Thus, the most significant difference should be between which of the barrel lengths best suits your eyes for focal length (i.e. which front sight is crisper in focus). But you should be able to make either pattern work for you regardless of barrel length, as every shot should be in the same place. As for which has better balance, if you can support a broomstick using only your index fingers while in offhand position, that’s all you need to know about balance. Everything else is in your technique and what little things you do to maintain consistency.

I shoot a M1855 Harpers Ferry rifle

[matt]

i may not in the majority but i find that most of the two banders whether enfield or springfield style and zouave dont hold as well for me off hand like the three banders do. the only exception ive found is the 42 fremont that balances just like the 3 bander. it has its own problems im working with but i am currently shooting a 55 musket with a whitacre barrel that i can hold on target all day. i also find i like the long range sights and the longer sight radius works better for my eyes on the 3 bander than a 2 bander. i also hold under the trigger guard as that is how i was taught in the corps to shoot offhand using a reverse c. and the musket balances very close to that point . the two banders ive shot seem to want a longer hold and i cant keep them on target like that. best advice is to handle as many oieces as you can and see what works for you.
matt
winslows battery 9775v

[Gary Van Kauwenbergh, 101]

Longer barrels will give you more muzzle velocity for a given powder charge.

I used to shoot the Parke-Hale musketoon, 2-band and 3-band muskets. All were British made, and I used the Parker-Hale shallow cavity mold in them. I chronographed them, and 50 grains of FFg GOEX with that bullet yeilded average muzzle velocities of 748 fps out of the musketoon, 768 in the 2-bander, and 829 in the 3-bander.

Of course you can use more or less powder in your loads to raise or lower the MV of whatever gun you're shooting, I'm just pointing out here you get more MV for your money with the longer barrel.

I always preferred the 3-bander and musketoon for skirmishing, but used the two-bander for hunting. I thought the 3-bander was more accurate, but didn't care to carry that much gun around in the woods.

[sheepsfoot2]

thank-you everyone for your help...looks like there's not a real big difference..the 2band wins...3band a close 2nd...comes down to personnel preference...probably the 2 bander is more suitable for my needs...hunting ,,target....also my short range eyesight has,gone down hill a bit....i noticed the 2 bander, rear sight is further from my eye...wont be so blurry...A 2 BANDER IT IS....THANKS AGAIN SKIRMISHERS...
.but that original p-53 enfield looks tempting !!...?? sheepsfoot2

[Greg Ogdan, 11444]

Sheepsfoot,
Don't forget that in the N-SSA, we can replace the front sight blade with a post and we can also modify the rear with a peep hole. Done properly, this is not only a tremendous advantage for older eyes in competition, but really great in the woods too. Think back to what sight system your grandad used in the deer woods. I'll bet it ended up being peeps as he got older.

[sheepsfoot2]

Sheepsfoot,
Don't forget that in the N-SSA, we can replace the front sight blade with a post and we can also modify the rear with a peep hole. Done properly, this is not only a tremendous advantage for older eyes in competition, but really great in the woods too. Think back to what sight system your grandad used in the deer woods. I'll bet it ended up being peeps as he got older.

Greg
what a great idea...i will modify my other rifles too... my long range eye sight is still very good...but the last couple of years ..i am holding the newspaper near arms length....... sheepsfoot2

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Think back to what sight system your grandad used in the deer woods. I'll bet it ended up being peeps as he got older.
Greg, when my grandfather's eyesight began to fail (about 1950), he didn't resort to using peep sights or even a rifle scope... he simply began using a 12-ga shotgun for virtually everything he hunted. I can remember sitting with my cousins in Texas eating venison, squirrel or rabbit he killed, and when we'd finish eating, we'd each have a little pile of lead pellets laid off to the side on our plates. I can remember swallowing one or two lead pellets and simply never gave it another thought! It seemed to have passed right on through, and didn't seem to hurt me any... least not that it's noticable... except that little twitch in my trigger finger! LOL

[Greg Ogdan, 11444]

Richard,
My heart lies with the shotgun too! There just isn't much small game left here in Ohio anymore. But if I'm lucky enough to go to heaven when I die?...

[Michael T.]

Don't know where in Ohio you hunt, there is plenty in Lake and Ashtabula Co. and several State Hunting areas. Pheasants are scarce,my grandson gets rabbits all season.Southeastern Ohio is ok. Depends on what you want, plenty of coyotes too... Mike

[Southron Sr.]

(1) Why push a Minie Ball and your ramrod down an EXTRA SIX INCHES of barrel every time you load and then pull your ramrod out that EXTRA SIX INCHES of barrel every time you withdraw your ramrod to shoot? This slows down your rate of fire in team matches.

(2) I have cut down enough 3 band length barrels to 2 band length and have found that some barrels are WAY OFF CENTER when they are cut back. So why take the risk?

(3) All factors being equal a short, fat barrel will be more accurate than a long thin barrel, i.e. less muzzle whip every time the arm is fired. That is what "Bull Barrels" are all about.

(4) Confederate Skirmishers (back during 'The War') were often issued two band Enfields because they usually found to be more accurate and faster shooting-see above.

Have A Great Day!

[Dave Fox]

Re: rifle accuracy vs. rifle-musket accuracy. I seem to recall that the exhaustive firing tests conducted circa 1859 by an Army board (as reproduced in Fuller's "The Rifled-Musket") demonstrate an accuracy edge for the M.1855 rifle-musket over the M.1855 rifle.

[JOHN O'LEARY SR 12485]

FWIW
Get a piece of black craft paper and drill a neat small hole in the paper, a sixteenth or so.
Next trip to the range, bench your firearm, aimed at a target, put the piece of craft paper with the hole in it in front of your shooting eye, touching your eye protection. Notice the difference in clarity of sights and target versus no tiny hole in black paper.
Have been using the merit adjustable eyepiece for a long time. Takes a little time to get used to this gadget and proper location on your lense
but well worth the effort in the long run.

Safe Shooting

[sheepsfoot2]

FWIW
Get a piece of black craft paper and drill a neat small hole in the paper, a sixteenth or so.
Next trip to the range, bench your firearm, aimed at a target, put the piece of craft paper with the hole in it in front of your shooting eye, touching your eye protection. Notice the difference in clarity of sights and target versus no tiny hole in black paper.
Have been using the merit adjustable eyepiece for a long time. Takes a little time to get used to this gadget and proper location on your lense
but well worth the effort in the long run.

Safe Shooting
john
well done mate .....i think i have seen one of those in a buffalo arms catalogue..

[JOHN O'LEARY SR 12485]

Forgot to mention earlier, make a safety cord for eye piece to prevent loss of same. Use a piece of fishing line tied to eye piece with a loop on other end to slide onto arm of your glasses. Too much green to lose in the grass. You will never know it is there.

all the best