Was it really possible for their to be a crack shot with a musket or early rifle?

I was watching Sharpe recently (with Sean Bean) and he leads a group of crack shot riflemen. In the song Ol' Dood part 1 and 2 (by Sturgill Simpson) he has two sets of lyrics:

Must have got that Martin Meylin muzzle day he was born,

Things he could do with that rifle, blow the balls off a bat, reload, and shoot it one more time.

And then there's this in part 2:

Dood figured that he was about three hundred yards away.
Seamus didn't know that he was deadly as can be,
Thought he was out of range of that rifle from Cantuckee.

...

Dood laid that old long rifle right across a fallen tree,
Took moonlight sight on Seamus, let that iron ball fly free
His shot was true as David's rock, and it found its mark for sure.

The song must take place in the mid-1850's because Dood was born in 1829.

Also, there's Jack Hinson, a real-life historical figure. (Wikipedia on Jack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Hinson ). But here's an excerpt from it:

For the remainder of the war, Hinson used a 50 caliber Kentucky long rifle to conduct a personal war against the Union Army. He targeted Union soldiers at distances as great as a half mile on land and on military transports and gunboats on the Tennessee River and the Cumberland River. Hinson has been credited with as many as one hundred kills, although his rifle had only 36 notches; it has been suggested that the notches were for officers only.

I'm going to assume his 50 caliber Kentucky long rifle is the same one that the fictional Dood was using ("rifle from Cantuckee").

A football field is 120 yards, so Dood shot from almost 3 football fields away and "found its mark for sure". But that's just a fictional song. Jack Hinson, however, apparently shot from half a mile away, or 880 yards. That's over 7 football fields, so Dood shooting Seamus from 300 yards isn't too far-fetched.

Did Hinson actually manage to kill anyone at such a long-range? I guess we don't know for sure. These targets were on military transports and gunboats along the Tennessee and Cumberland River, so I imagine these shots were hard to make because there would have a been a lot of moment. Whatever the case may be, Hinson definitely sniped quite a lot of Union soldiers and officers in other cases, enough to be hunted down vigorously.

I'm reminded of John Sedgwick, the Union officer who's famous last words were "they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance" before being killed by Confederate sharpshooters. But I just always imagined 'sniping' was only really effective when you grouped a bunch of experienced riflemen together, and they all shot their rifles at specific targets; at least one of them would have hit something. Almost like line infantry who fire their muskets together, except the sharpshooters would have rifles and be further away, and more accurate due to rifling.

I don't really know the history of the scope, but apparently there were 'primitive scopes' as far back as 1835. And they became even more common during the American Civil War. I'll assume most sharpshooter units probably had scoped rifles to be more effective. And apparently the Whitworth rifle, which could have a scope, is what was used by the Confederate sharpshooters, and is what killed John Sedgwick. This is also the weapon Jack Hinson used; so I'll assume he was probably using a scope with his rifle. Perhaps the fictional Dood was using an early scope on his Kentucky rifle.

There's obviously evidence to suggest the accuracy of rifles, and there's even the use of scopes during the period to further increase a marksman's effectiveness. Jack Hinson is the best example, I think.

I guess what I'm wondering, were marksmen like Jack Hinson (and characters in media tropes) a fairly common occurence? Is he an example or the exception? Was it incredibly rare? Do we actually know just how accurate these rifles were? Like I said, I always thought of a sharpshooter unit as a group of experienced riflemen firing from a long distance, but somewhat in unison, so at least one of them would be able to make the kill. I'm surprised that a single individual using gunpowder weapons in the 1700/1800's was able to be as accurate as have seen or read about. Is the 'trope' we see about crack shot riflemen during this period justified?