Guys    Does anyone have or know of some one who has correspondence about the Rowland-Pope Ballard rifle whether between Rowland and Pope or individually. I have the books by Kelver and Ray Smith.   Thanks for any info.

A SET OF THE BOOKS WAS JUST POSTED IN THE FOR SALE SECTION

Your welcome. There may be more out there from Pope's side, but  doubt there is much more from Rowland's, as Mr. Dutcher has amassed a considerable collection of information on Rowland. I would have suggested that you contact John, but would not do so until I asked him. You didn't mention what information you had, or it's source. You might consider sharing what more you are able to collect, and good luck in your quest.

This is a photo from Ray Day's auction, which was largely Rowland's stuff;

I'm too old for Farrah Fawcett.  Can someone make a poster of that Ray Day picture so I can hang that on my bedroom wall?

Bill Lawrence

Mr. TipUp  If I may be so bold, if it was Farrah Fawcett you hung on your wall when young you are indeed too old now, and better suited to a framed photograph of Rowland's record setting rifle. It happens to us all eventually, some at 70, others at 100, or some 
while chasing angels to cover.

Take comfort, you are certainly not alone!

I have a CW Roland hanging on my wall and here is where you can also get the same one from Randy Wright.

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Marlinguy   You are correct regarding the Rowland article, it was from the local Boulder Colorado newspaper, where Rowland lived.

Yes he did indeed Fitz and thank you for sharing it to keep the actual facts of it being correct.

Might have been just abit confusing to some with the comments being shared about Schoyen and nothing more.

Many thanks for your comments.  I  had  great discussions with John Dutcher several years ago and Ray Day's daughter. Still understand there is more info ( letters) out there, but probably lost to history. I understand that when Rowland made Pope mad in his comparison of Pope and Schoyen barrels, Pope never replied or opened any further correspondence from Rowland.  These letters might be somewhere, but I'll bet they're lost or destroyed. Certainly would be of interest.  Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

There were a large number of letters from Rowland to Pope in the Pope records. And yes some were not opened,{ They were by Gerald Kelver when he wrote his book}  They were to go to ASSRA archives but I believe that Warren Greatbatch still has them . I will not go into that story.

There was no bonfire in any driveway. Popes sons both knew there was value in everything in the shop. Ray Smith was first and write his book, The boys sold items from Florida as I still have some of the tag bags they were shipped in. Smith sold the papers and they moved around from owner to owner. Claude Roderick, Bob Scoot back to Roderick,Kelver, Trevor, Greatbatch. Kelvers book has about as I recall five percent of what was there. A lot of little interest to Schuetzen shooters but covers Jersey City to the shop closing out in 1950 when the Colgate building was to be torn down for a parking lot.

Well I guess I opened a door here. Truly hope that all Popes correspondence was not lost. What a treasure. But so far know one has refuted the statement that the 
group Rowland shot that stood for many years was shot with a Pope barreld Rifle.
If that story is wrong I would sure like to hear about it. In the search for the truth.
Do not want cast untruths on any one, these guy's were truly at the top of the game. Oh, buy the way I own two Schoyen rifles one a 33-40 and one a 32-40.
They have both been rode hard and put away wet, lots of abuse showing but with a good bullet and load they are tack driver rifles. Sorry if I have been wrong on any statements I have posted here. FITZ, OLD TUCK

So just how many days did it actually take for CW Rowland to shoot that one group. And did he actually do it outside in the actual conditions for a given day. Or in a more protected place for him to be able to accomplish it over more than just one day?

Since Rowland mentions weather conditions, it would seem it was shot outdoors. Rowland did some testing an a mine he had access to for shooting when the weather was poor. But it seems his record group was not shot in the mine.

Any guess who the shooter was to beat Pope’s target with any rifle, J Borton was probably the first with a cast bullet rifle, D Reynolds brought the group down farther, and J Schultz shot a .634 this summer. I don’t remember any better 10 shot groups shot before the mid fifties.   Ledball

This is an old thread that pertains to Mr. Rowland as well as his load; 

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Might also add there was a real good write up about these three who have all surpassed CW Rolands group size. 
You can find it the Single Shot Rifle Journal, July / August 2012, Vol. 65, No. 4.

???? Not sure what it is you are asking as there are no 
similarities at all between the two.

The October 1902 Outdoor life article written about Rowland's record group states the following"
"The load used in making the target was 3 grains of Dupont No. 1 smokeless, 7 1/2 U.M.C. primer, and the shell nearly full of Hazard Fg powder, making a bulk charge of about 46 grs. Before using the powder was carefully sifted through several sieves to perfectly sure that it was of even grain. Bullets were cast 1 to 10, lubricated with Leopold's No. 5 lubricant. Oleo grease wads were employed. Rest was a Stevens-Pope No.1 rear and No.2 front, supported on a very heavy wooden frame, deeply seated in the earth, and strongly braced."

So it seems his load was not smokeless as I've seen described in some reports, but a duplex with smokeless priming charge. Which begs the question if anyone has beaten his record shooting BP, or a duplex charge?

marlinguy
Nice job in covering Rowland's load used to shoot this famous group.

Mick B asked about the bullet Rowland used. While I have not come across just what bullet he used, it would have looked about like the one pictured below. That drawing is from a bullet cast from a Pope mold. It weighs in at 185 grains. Rowland would have used a bullet of similar design, likely from the bullet mold Pope supplied with the barrel he sold to Rowland.

Back several years ago while I was researching and writing my book The Golden Age of the American Schuetzenfest, I did a lot of shooting with black and duplex loads trying to duplicate the accuracy achieved back in the day. With good range conditions, I was able to get fairly consistent 1.5 MOA and sometimes close to 1 MOA, 10-shot groups at 200 yards with both straight black and duplex. Shot bench rest of course but not from a machine rest such as Rowland used.

RSW wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 12:11pm:


I agree Randy. He mentions the mix of 1 in 10 ratio, and I'd assume he would have no reason to not use the mold Pope built to go with his barrel.

John,
  Roland's target was shot on one day, May 16, 1901.  Shooting from a machine rest was "state of the art" for benchrest shooting back then but would be completely non-competitive against what we use today.

Not starting any rumors it has been very well known that his accomplishment was done over just one day.
He was also a very wealthy man and he probably had more free time and the very best of rifles than any of us could ever afford. 
The machine rest was not crude by any means at the time and he did not even have to touch the rifle itself.
The folks who have since surpassed his accomplishment in no way had an advantage over him by any means. 
But actually just the opposite of what he could actually afford to buy and use.
Folks keep asking can anyone do the same as he did and the only one that I know of has been Randy Wright.
So why not get out there and try doing itself instead of just asking if anyone else can as Randy himself has done. 
And he has been doing it with what ever he could afford to own and to also use.
You your self have some very nice rifles with the barrels made at the time and they might actually be capable of doing the same as CW Roland once did.
Once being the Key the word so it would only be but one goal that you would have to reach. 
 




  

You can argue machine rest vs modern rests, weather conditions, time it took or any other factors you want, but the fact it took so long to best should speak for itself.

Then what no has mentioned that I have seen, is the difference in optics. It would not be to far of a stretch to say that the worst modern scopes have better glass than the best of the day 100 years ago. Even a 50 year old scope is far better. That in itself is a huge advantage. Never mind the quality of mounts and the ability to return to zero.

After all, even a perfect machine can only go where you point it.

It’s kind of a pointless argument of who did it better. The more often the score is beat, the more likely you can attribute it to improved equipment. At the time original group was shot, there were many more people shooting the same or similar gear, and it was not bested. 

When 100 years later you have 1/1000 shooters beat what only 1/100000  could do, it’s not likely that technology did not play a significant role.

Not trying to take away from anybody’s accomplishments, but it needs to be considered honestly.

JL. You just challenged folk to 'prove' whatever. Let's see some of your proof. You just said that folks today did not have an advantage- start by proving THAT. Or, concrete evidence that it was shot over a lengthy span of time. (that the drizzle conveniently cooperated in). Heck, just prove anything. 

calledflyer wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 5:55pm:


An old Pope Ballard, which was state of the art at the time. An old machine rest, which was state of the art at the time. Old duplex load, also state of the art at the time. A crappy telescope, which was state of the art at the time.
Yet today shooters probably have better everything, except maybe that Pope barreled Ballard.  And how old was CW Rowland at this time? Yet, somehow Rowland had something equal to what we see on the firing lines today? Not in my book.

So it sounds like you're just going to state you've got years of knowledge to say you're right? That's not proof, that's your opinion.
And bringing up some past discussion about cutting rifling has zip to do with this discussion, and proves nothing to support your claims. It is as I said previously, just a way for you to try to make some off topic point that makes zero sense.
And saying everyone else can do the same as you is basically saying they can ask around, and repeat myths also, which still doesn't prove a darn thing. If you can't prove it, then say so. Don't simply state that people can do their own research.

JLouis wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 7:08pm:


Once again you're simply trying to distract and play some word games. You'll never admit you're wrong, and can't prove this myth about how Rowland shot his record. I'm laughing at you saying you admit you're wrong and apologize to anyone. Too funny!
Isn't everybody's experience their own? How does yours differ from others, except to be based on myths when it comes to history. So if the almighty John Louis says it's true, then he doesn't need to prove it? It's up to everyone who doubts what you say to prove you're wrong. Not your responsibility to back up your claims. Once again, hilarious.
Oh, and you've played the sympathy card often. Whenever you attack anyone and they stand up for themselves you start acting like you're being bullied by them. Reminds me of the kids in grade school who hits another when the teacher isn't looking, and then acts all innocent. Or the little brother who pulls his sister's hair, and then plays innocent when she cries for mom.

JLouis wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 8:18pm:


Because they're not what you're making them out to be. Far more common is your demand for people to take whatever you say as gospel.

JLouis wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2021 at 8:50pm:


Laughable. This from the guy who avoids answering questions, when asked to prove his statements. And instead begins rambling about apologies, rifling, and anything else to distract from proving what he says is fact.
And you might want to look in the mirror and make that same statement. You post some really bizarre stuff around here.

Randy, 
Does the rear of the Pope rest clamp the rifle in any way, or simply cradle the barrel?

Randy that is extremely nice and some of those here might have not known. What the Pope Machine Rest actually consisted of and this is an outstanding example of.

CF please go look and then let us all know what it was that you found out. 

And I am not happily ignoring you ??

Don’t you just hate people that post distracting pictures of their rifles.....just kidding. That’s one nice Ballard you have there RSW.

Premod70 agree rifle is very charming with very nice wood and checkering.

Thanks Randy. I wish I'd gotten one of those sets when Rodney had them for sale. Might have to give him a call and get on a list for the next time he runs some more.

I too would want to build a box that will allow transport without needing an engine hoist to get it in and out of my Suburban! So I like your box approach, and especially the reinforcing corners to ensure it stays together over years of use. I'll probably steal your design if I can get a casting set, or finished castings from Rodney.
Not sure what it takes to finish a casting set? If it's a mill and other precise equipment I would buy them finished as my little Chinese mill and lathe wont do very precise work.

I like the I beam design. I had contemplated a boxed in box, with the lid having the rest bolted to it, so things could be stored inside. But that would make a heavier box, and if the top was hinged it might not be as solid.
I use a modern shooting rest, and it works great. But it just looks weird to be shooting a nice old single shot in a modern rest.

where'd you find that? or, is it another secret?

ah, so has this man ever responded, adding substance to the things in the posting? I never read that and probably wouldn't have thought of a twelve year-old post anyway. So, if it's really true, where's he at now?
And thanks for the link- the other guy was keeping that to himself.

The Ultimate in Rifle Precision

By: Townsend Whelen

Sportsman's Press, 1951

 

THE WORLD'S   RECORD   AT 200 YARDS

American riflemen have always considered the group of ten shots at 200 yards fired by Mr. C. W. Rowland of Boulder, Colorado on May 16, 1901 as being the World's Record for accuracy. Other rifles and ammunition which have made records at longer distances have never equaled this at 200 yards, and thus we think that this target can be properly regarded as The Record.

Mr. Rowland's target, which is reproduced here in the exact size from the original, was shot with a .32-40 breech-muzzle loading barrel made by H. M. Pope, in a Ballard action. It was shot from a machine rest, probably the Pope rest, in which the naked barrel is uniformly rested at the breech and close to the muzzle, the rifle being shot with its butt-stock on it, and the butt-plate being caught and braked by the hand after a short recoil travel. The charge was a lead alloy bullet of unknown weight (probably 180 to 200 grains) lubricated with Leopold's lubricant (same as the present Ideal Lubricant), and propelled by a charge of Hazards FG black powder. The bullet was loaded from the muzzle in the usual Pope manner, and the case filled with powder inserted from the breech. Mr. Rowland has noted the weather as “No wind,” and “Sprinkling;” conditions most favorable for black powder.

Mr. Rowland's target has been measured very carefully. There is no way to measure it with a great degree of accuracy that I know of, so I will outline the manner in which it was measured. We made this assumption: in the target above the record target there is one distinct bullet hole. The assumption is that this shot displaced the same amount of paper as the shots in the record target. This seems to be a safe assumption as presumably the rifle, paper and bullet were the same.

We measured this single hole quite carefully”€�optically under 4X magnification. The average diameter of this hole is .245-inch. Then we carefully measured the extreme spread of the record group”€�that is the extreme of the displaced paper. This figure is .970-inch. Subtracting the diameter of a single bullet hole (.245” displaced paper) gives an extreme spread, center to center, of .725-inch for the Rowland record group.

The target edges here are irregular. The group has been much handled and apparently the outline of the group has been traced many times before it was mounted, so I do not believe it can be measured any more..

I am more interested in his Dad's connection with Ray Day.

That is a re-run John, as Dellet already posted it.

Any controversy about the much-handled Rowland group would be about how much bigger it had become from folks sticking plugs, fingers. and whatnot into the holes. There isn't any way it could go here but to a bigger group. So, did the later guys really beat him, or just beat his stretched out group? I sure don't have the answer.

Who's Ray Day? How does he fit in here?

That is correct. He owned the "record" rifle, and quite a few more of Rowland's rifles.

Barry and Ray;

AcGould on the left of which many of you know by his real name and Barry Darr on the right.
Most folks don't know Barry did one tour in Vietnam in the brown water Navy on the river boats. He made a friend on his boat and they were going to go into business together when they got out. 
His friend talked him into going back and doing another tour and his friend ended up dying in arms. 
I know some folks here don't care to here about him as being my friend.
But they should try to respect him for the time that he served. 

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)