AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: LynnC on December 28, 2011, 01:00:48 AM
-
Note - All that follows was split off from "Rifles vs Smoothbores" in gunbuilding
Gents,
It was mentioned a ways back in this thread that smoothbores were likely shot with naked balls or perhaps with a wad on top. The following are just my thoughts about round balls in smoothbores.
I find it hard to believe that the smoothbore users of the day did not commonly use patched balls. It doesn't seem such a stretch that if a patched ball made a rifle shoot true that it would improve the accuracy of the lowly smoothbore. I you are not in a fight for your life, you have time to load it patched.
Its also a Whole lot safer to carry a smoothbore with a patched ball than a bare ball, with or without a wad on top, that might move off the powder.
Though not practical for military use (at least after the first shot), I would bet that patched balls were commonly used in smoothbores when hunting game. Would it not be agreed that smooth rifles were likely shot with patched balls? I Can't prove it either way....
BTW - None of my comments are to be construed as to say smoothbore accuracy in any way equals a rifle with a patched round ball...... ;)
-
Not to argue James, Just what if'in.
Patching a ball in a smoothbore just seems (to me anyway) so logical.
Another thought.....Could the meaning of "wadding" not be interchangeable with "patching"?
Perhaps the act of patching a ball in a smoothbore was so common knowledge as to be un-noteworthy.
Just a thought - Can't prove a thing. ;)
-
There are a lot of period references to using wadding with a round ball and plenty of period guns found loaded with wadding. I'm unaware of references to patching a round ball in a smoothbore in the 1700's-early 1800's. Of course paper cartridges were common in military situations.
Personally I've had trouble with patched balls in smoothies, keeping it clan/able to load after a couple shots. Seems like there's no place for the fouling to go. Maybe if I swabbed after shots this problem would go away. But I'm more interested in the 18th century experience than modernizing or optimizing, so will probably stick to wadding.
-
I find patching a round ball easy in a smoothbore. Undersize ball, thick patch, easy RR only loading. Shot after shot. I just see it as unrealistic to think nobody could figure out patched round balls are far more accurate. These people were not simpletons. It works for us, no doubt (in my mind anyway) it would have worked for them. Too simple not to.
Heck, its hard to find period instruction to clean the flintlock fowler or musket. Percussion instructions are available. Seem to be the Same deal as loading, not important enough to mention...
I guess I'm not reading the right stuff because I can find little reference at all to loading smoothbores other than military muskets.
-
Lynn,
While I agree with the logic you bring forth, it seems to be modern as far as the historical record is concerned. I am of the smaller ball and thicker patch team when shooting PRB in a smoothe gun.
This topic is actually being discussed from two angles, historical and modern practical. Many times they do not mesh. Sometimes they do but the record as best we have it decides.
Also, there are numerous 18th century references to cleaning and loading 18th century flint guns. There are at least 8 or 10 books on the subject as well. Send me a pm Lynn and I will send you a list of a few of them tomorrow when I am at the pc. Fun reading : )
Regards,
James
-
Thank you James - Will do
-
Another thought.....Could the meaning of "wadding" not be interchangeable with "patching"?
This could certainly be a possibility but the plethora of wadding references in the period would seem pretty solid in their consistency.
This also proves helpful in easily drawing a load with a worm.
-
Thank You James,
I couldn't figure out how to reply to your PM so I must do it here.
If you could post your note to me here, others might get something out of it as well. Can you tell I'm Computer Challenged?
Hope you don't mind I printed you PM out for future reference. Of the 5 books I've only had the opportunity to read one. I look forward to getting hold of the other 4.
There is no dispute that wadding above and below a load of shot was in common use and that military style ball loads were in cartridges or wadded.
I numbered the wadding references 1 thru 11
1 - load of shot - no dispute
2 - load of shot - no dispute
3 - wad with ball military situation
4 - load of shot - no dispute
5 - Shot in back, ball and wad in wound - Context? Situation?
6 - load of shot - no dispute
7 - bare balls carried in mouth - context? Buffalo hunting from horse back maybe?
8 - load of bare ball after missing a deer with supposed "wadded ball" - written by observer, not the hunter, Questionable
9 - military style ball load
10 - load of shot - no dispute
11 - ball with a grass wad - who shot the woman? context? Circumstances?
Of the 11 references 5 are shot loads not in dispute, 2 are military style loads that are expected to be wadded and 4 are possibly civilian (?) ball loads that lack context. I wish I could have read each of individual passages in their entirety so that i could understand the situation of each instance and not appear so argumentative. (Sorry I'm not computer sharp enough to have posted a quote for the above references)
The 4 instances you present are intriguing but I remain unconvinced that patched balls were not used in smoothbores back in the day. I look forward to reading the books referenced and perhaps then I'll be convinced. I guess I want some period shooting author to say patched balls cannot be used in smoothbores because.......
Thanks Again,
Lynn
-
Lynn,
I am not totally convinced that PRB did not see limited use either and that is why the search continues. What I am sure of is that the most studied in the subject have only uncovered a pile of wadding references to solidify it as a common 18th century method. A student of history must follow the record and not supposition. Also a student of history must follow the record even if it changes direction. Some have a hard time with that as well.
I gave you a small sample of the many wadding references out there and just what I had readily available. Everyone has to share in the footwork so we will be looking for you to bring back some new information : ) IIRC most of those were collected by Karl Koster and are centralized in the Great Lakes area.
We are almost heading to the "trying to prove a negative" abyss ; )
-
Quick reply - You must be on here full time ;D
I'm willing to read all references to civilian wadded balls and will certainly be glad to post anything I discover, wadded or patched or not, along these lines. You know, I've probably read dozens of antique gun books. Lots about the guns and their use but little on their loading and upkeep. Truely hard to find info.
Maybe this thread should be "How were balls loaded in a smoothbore back in the day?"
Sorry if I high jacked the topic but this is a strong area of interest to me....
Good Night and Thanks Again
-
Fellas, good discussion, hope you found that I split the previous topic (rifles versus smoothbores) and that this line of discussion may receive more input from shooters. To summarize so far, the discussion seems to cover 2 topics:
1) How round balls were loaded historically in non-military situations in smoothbores
and
2) How folks load round balls in smoothbores now for best results.
-
Thanks Rich for splitting this off.
Primarily my interest is how were civilian smoothbores (trade guns, fowling pieces, smooth rifles) loaded with ball back in the day.
Any period info would be most welcome...............Lynn
-
I'm quoting a quote here, so consider it with caution:
“In countries where orchards abound, a very fine moss, of greenish grey colour, is found adhering to the apple trees, which is extremely proper for wadding….tow is also very good for this purpose”.
The above information is taken from “An Essay On Shooting 1789”, by Cleator. Note it does not specifically indicate this is for round ball.
In a PM I am sending you a link to another forum where this has been discussed and many period references offered. They are what they are; not all apply specifically to round ball only.
-
From what I have seen a bare ball will shoot better than a patched ball from a smooth bore flintlock. From the first gun I built, a 20 bore French trade gun to the .40 cal. Smooth rifle for my nephew and my .55 smooth rifle. They will all hold a tighter group with a bare ball. Doesn’t matter if the ball is dropped on the powder or over a wad.
While working up a load for my .55 I tried 5 or 6 different patches, different lubes and 4 ball sizes from loose to way too tight to load with a ramrod. The best group was about 8” at 50 yards. At 100 yards bagged up on the bench it would hit a 20” round steel plate about ½ the time. When loaded with around 85gr. FF and a bare ball seated on the powder it will hit center of the plate and group in the 8” zone every time. It’s good for 25 shots before it starts getting crusty and you have push the ball past the fowling. Add a spit soaked felt wad and it will shoot all day.
It also works with wet wasp nest, green grass, damp dead grass, damp rotted sap wood (one of my favorites), dried fungus and a little spit and lots of other stuff that was available 200 years ago. A little bit of grass on top will hold the ball while hunting or shooting down hill targets without effecting where it hits.
Stating with loaded gun it will put 11 to 12 hits on a paper plate at 25 yards in 3 minutes. Try that with patched balls.
Is this a historical reference? No. But, I feel if you walk into the woods armed gun, powder and ball you will find the same answers they did 250 years ago.
-
Two things to think about:
First is our ability to source a variety of bullet molds that are accurate to a few thousandths of an inch. We have the luxury of time, money, and supply to experiment with patch and ball combinations. We can buy boxes of swaged .662 or .445 or .495 balls to try out and then head off to the fabric store for some .021 ticking, or maybe .015.
Back in the day perhaps the fowler came with a brass, iron or soapstone mold that was roughly the right size. The fabric available was what scrap they had around.
Those rough choices likely leveled the playing field between bare ball and patched ball.
Also, their standards were probably lower in most cases. They weren't trying for five shots in the 10 ring. If they could hit a man or a deer in the body at 50 yards with a large-ish ball they got the job done. Call it a foot and a half circle. Bentflint seems to be able to hit an 8" circle at that range - eminently practical for 18th century purposes, so why would they slow themselves down with patches?
-
Can someone post a link or paper reference to some of the archaeological sites where loaded guns have been dug. I seem to remember that there were several --perhaps James Levy in Florida-- instances where loaded guns were found and, since they were lost in the period, the loads would help settle what was actually being used.
I believe some were from overturned boats/canoes and others were from battle sites.
They probably don't contradict the documentary references but do provide another source of information.
Gary
-
Thanks to Rich for sending me a link. I copied a couple items that relate to the question and hope nobody minds. I didn't copy any military or shot loads mentioned in the link as we are interested in civilian style ball loads.
“As you might expect, parts from many Type G trade guns have been recovered in FL. I think the one that you are referring to and the one that is the most complete is the piece recovered from the Suwannee River at Running Springs by a river diver back in 2005. It was marked “Williams” on the lock, but no proof marks were found discernable on the barrel. It was 24 gauge or .58 cal. and the barrel was 46 ½” in length. It was octagon to round with a diameter of 1.2” at the breech. It was found loaded with a ball that looked to have been whittled down in size and palm or palmetto fiber appeared to be the wadding.”
E-mail from James Levy, a conservator working for the State of Florida.
"..had shot her in the back...she thought if she could only have this bullet out she would not have such pain. So Wacouta opened a knife and gave it to her. She made an incision and the bullet, together with a bunch of grass, fell to the floor and rolled away. They always wadded their guns with grass."
~ Mary E. Schwandt Schmidt Recollection,.German Pioneer Accounts of the Great Sioux Uprising of 1862
Both of the above seem to indicate that native indians wadded their ball loads with natural substances readily available to them. I've read similar accounts of native use of natural wadding.
Still looking for period accounts of how a hunter, trapper, civilian might load his ball, patched or wadded..........Lynn
-
Seems we're into home defense now; it would not be difficult to keep the topic more longrifle-related. "If'n I was in a cabin surrounded by Brant's boys I'd want to be loading and shooting such and such."
We clearly lack a lot of historical data on how smoothbore civilian guns were loaded with round ball. There's not a lot of documentation that wadding was used atop the ball, but it's there. Documentation that patched round balls were used seems scant if it exists at all.
W/o more specific data to go on I'd suspect that a person's training had a lot to do with how they loaded a smoothbore with a round ball. A townsman/soldier who did militia drill then fought in the army would have learned to shoot a paper cartridge. Seems native Americans learned to use the naked ball and natural wadding on top for their smoothbores. Somebody must have taught them that, maybe in order to make them less effective (almost just kidding; surely they would have observed how whites loaded their guns). A hunter with a wender, one barrel rifled and one barrel smooth, may have used a patch in both when both were loaded with round ball. Or not.
-
Not here Rich, we left the modern home defense over on the rifle vs smoothbore thread in gunbuilding ;)
-
Guys! There REALLY comes a time when any SANE individual has to say "Who the H3)) cares!" Enough is enough in ANYONES book! If it went down the barrel, it's over!
-
Not here Rich, we left the modern home defense over on the rifle vs smoothbore thread in gunbuilding ;)
Lynn, I confused myself with that split! :'(
Dogshirt, some of us are like a dog with a bone- nobody's forcing anyone to read more of a thread than they want. But sometimes it's like a car wreck I suppose- can't drive by without a glance or two.
-
I understand, I am an anthopologist with my field being the Northern Plains. But some times one just has to walk away from picking nits!
-
Oh DS, What the Heck else are we going to argue about? ;D
-
Well, as long as you're having fun. :D
-
I'm having fun, that's why I keep clicking on this thread. If I didn't want to read it I wouldn't click on it, or comment about it.
-
BTW - Thanks Bentflint for relating your personal smoothbore shooting experience - all are interesting...
-
Bentflint,
I feel that you provided a very important insight with your statement concerning rapidity of fire with the wadded smoothbore. At close quarters this would have been highly desirable for obvious reasons. I apologize for the later time-period, but a similar situation was very common here in the West in the 1870's. Many times one reads of a group of frontiersmen being armed with both heavy caliber single shots and light caliber repeaters, i.e. a .45 or .50 Sharps and .44 Henrys or Winchesters. I have used the various .44 repeaters loaded with black in the field and for hunting they leave quite a bit to be desired. They are basically 50-yard rifles if one wants any killing reliability and even then one had better place his shot correctly. However, they are capable of a large volume of fire in a short time. I believe that the old timers realized this and covered all bases by having both types of firearms along. A .44 Henry would be great for repelling boarders at close range.
Possibly we have the same situation with the wadded smoothbore, especially in the case of the smooth rifle. My experience, though somewhat limited in comparison to yours, is that the patched smoothbore is more accurate, but I will not dispute that it is as slow as a rifle to reload. The more important factor is the range at which the gun will be used. 100-yard accuracy is relatively unimportant if 99% of the shots will be under 50 yards. Speed of loading will then trump extreme accuracy. When I was an elk guide this was a common mistake made by hunters-they brought a rifle set up for making 500-yard shots and were almost unable to use the same rifle effectively at 100 yards or less. One needs to prepare his equipment for the most often encountered situation.
Another factor to consider in this interesting-at least to me- discussion, is that the lone hunter, both in the East and the West, was a rarity. Groups spelled safety and to travel/hunt/trap alone was considered to be almost suicide. Here in the West permits were required by the government for those engaged in trade, and companies of men traveled together for safety. Any journal from the period clearly shows this. It would make sense then that these men would equip themselves with a variety of weapons to cover any circumstance, both long and short range. Possibly this is where the smooth-rifle fits, as more accurate than a typical musket of the day but still capable of the musket's rate of fire when loaded appropriately for each situation.
For the lone hunter, one accurate shot is still the most desirable, at least in my opinion/experience. However, the mistake that is being made is lumping the needs of frontiersmen from many different eras and locales together. Twenty men traveling the Northland in canoes are going to behave much differently than twenty men traveling the Santa Fe Trail or a lone hunter skulking through Kan-Tuc-Kee, not to mention the practical needs of a market hunter in an area that is relatively settled and safe. One thing I think we can agree on- if a person survived very long on the frontier under typical conditions he was adept at handling his chosen firearm and did not take a cavalier attitude towards it's loading or maintenance.
Steve
-
Hello All!
pake here. I'm very new to the forum, as you can see from my (non) post count but, I've been shooting bp for awhile and have built a few guns. Actually I've started hanging around here to get some ideas for another build, but that's a different topic.
In reading this thread about historic references as to how civilians might load a smoothie with a ball, I remembered an interesting account I had read last year. Took a bit to find all the info again. You may find it interesting.
The reference can be found in Voyages of Peter Esprit Radisson 1636-1710. Being an account of his travels and experiences among the North American Indians, from 1652 to 1684. Transcribed from original manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and the British Museum.
This account, occurred in the first of his four "journeys", each lasting from two to three years. He titles it, "The Relation of my Voyage, being in Bondage in the Lands of the Irokoits, which was the next year after my coming into Canada, in the year 1651, the 24th day of May."
"Being persuaided in the morning by two of my comrades to go and recreat ourselves in fowling, I disposed myselfe to keepe them Company; wherfor I cloathed myselfe the lightest way I could possible, that I might be the nimbler and not stay behinde, as much for the prey that I hoped for, as for to escape the danger into which wee have ventured ourselves of an enemy the cruelest that ever was upon the face of the earth." (There's a lot to consider in this sentence isn't there? Hunting for recreation, dressing for conditions, awareness and preparation for trouble... I wish I could quote it all but time and space prevent it. The three set out, and in spite of knowing the apparent danger from "the ennemy, made us look to ourselves and charge two fowling peeces with great shot the one, and the other with small. Priming our pistols, we went where our fancy first lead us."
The group shot some "duks", and two of the party decided they'd had enough. Radisson jibes them, they argue, he decides to continue alone for a time, during which he shoots, "three geese, tenn ducks, and one crane, with some teales." Returning later and on the way back home, he spied more ducks, but while preparing for more good shooting finds his two companions dead, killed, "murthered", as he says. Now, with his own hair standing on end he sees twenty or thirty Indians in the grass just ahead. But they hadn't spied him yet. This long winded introduction sets up the next quote; one that addresses the question, "How did they load their gunnes?"
"Mightily surprized att the view, I must needs passe through the midst of them or tourne backe into the woode. I slipped a boullet upon the shot and beate the paper into my gunne."
So in this case he shoots shot, and a ball; but it's a wadded ball, and things didn't work out too well after that either.
Respectfully,
pake
-
Interesting read. Chalk up another account of a wadded ball. Doesn't seem patched balls were much recorded as used in SB's.
Thanks for the story and Welome to ALR.....Lynn
-
I have a ca. 1820 smoothbore musket still loaded with a patched round ball [but no telling when it was last loaded]--that I have so far been unable to pull [I can see it with a flashlight]. That said, there are five gun types that may or may not have used patched balls: true rifles [plenty of old references to follow-up shots NOT patched], smoothrifles [set-up like real rifles and likely typically shot with patched balls], military muskets [the paper cartridge can act as both wadding and patching], the fowling gun [typically wadded] and the trade gun [a smoothbore typically wadded, but who knows?]. With all this known patch use, who is to say the fowler or trade gun user did not sometimes patch a ball for his gun? The period lit seems to support wadding for smoothbores like fowling and trade guns. The period lit seems to support that even rifles were sometimes, in haste, reloaded with bare ball [not even wadding!]. .....as to what is best for modern target shooting & hunting, one needs to try several options and pick the best for his gun. As a reenactor, I try to stick with period documented ways...
-
What Bentflint said I think is dead on...I have used leaves, grass, whatever would hold the ball down the barrel....Worked just fine....
-
It surprises me that they weren't patched. I always thought that common sense would prevail. Patch my rifle, but not my "Fowling piece"? hmm.And I'm really surprised that nothing is recorded regarding a patched ball.Perhaps it was such a common practice that it never was recorded?
In a "pinch", I can see loading with what was handy,but for Sunday afternoon deer hunting,I'd be using a small greased linen square!
Maybe common sense back then was uncommon? :o :-\
-
We forget that guns were left loaded back then. Worms were a common item on ramrods and an easy way to change loads would be to pull the over shot wad and change a load from RB to shot or vs versa. Depeding on the hunters needs, he could go after waterfowl and if he saw a moose, might have a chance to switch loads and then sneak up on the moose, or go from a moose load to waterfowl. With the powder contained by an over powder wad it would be realtively easy to do. If the ball were patched it would not, so patched RBs may not have been common. Just a thought.
DP
-
It surprises me that they weren't patched. I always thought that common sense would prevail. Patch my rifle, but not my "Fowling piece"? hmm.And I'm really surprised that nothing is recorded regarding a patched ball.Perhaps it was such a common practice that it never was recorded?
In a "pinch", I can see loading with what was handy,but for Sunday afternoon deer hunting,I'd be using a small greased linen square!
Maybe common sense back then was uncommon? :o :-\
Maybe you're assuming that a rifleman is shooting the round ball in a smoothbore? Many smoothbore users were not riflemen. For example almost everybody in what is now Canada and most of "new France" from the 1600's to the 1800's shot smoothbores exclusively. Second, anyone who had served in militia used paper cartridges. No patched round ball. Third, anyone who used a smoothbore with shot was used to an over powder wad and an overshot wad. Of course someone today coming from a rifle background and trying smoothbores with round ball would use a patch- but there is scant if any historical evidence that this was common in the 1700's and early 1800s.
-
Thanks Rich,
Maybe they should have called them "foulers"! :o I like the paper cartridge idea but stuffing grass,leaves and hornet nest for shooting a single projectile sounds like a nasty cleanup! Probably(but unknown to me) you could get 2 or three shots off before the bore needed a swish. I guess with me being a rifleman, it just seems odd to not patch a single projectile in any frontstuffer.
-
I have said this before, but will repeat......I shoot my smoothbore a lot, and hunt with it. I tried different combinations of patched balls and was not happy with the results, Then I tried paper cartridges, and business picked up considerably. Round ball groups shrunk, and a 6 in pie plate off hand at 50 yds is not a problem. Not 2 or 4 or 5 shots......12 or 20 . The famous 3 in group always had a flier increased the spread so I assume that that one will be the one shot at a bear or a deer . 6 in is repeatable and I have confidence in my shooting when hunting. Besides, most of my game shots are at 25 yds .
I shoot patched balls in my rifle, where they belong ;D
-
Bob, what you say makes perfect sense, for a hunting gun. I use .650 pure lead patched balls in my double percussion Manton 15 bore when I want a grouse load with shot in the right barrel. I get saucer sized groups at 50 yards, and that's fine if Bullwinckle steps out on the trail in front of me.
However, in our smooth bore round ball competitions, many of the targets are too small and too far away to use such a loose shooting combination. In this case, rifle-like accuracy is required if you want to be competitive. So we use cloth patches, and load it like a rifle.
Still, I must try paper cartouches in my 15 bore double gun. Sounds intriguing.
-
George C. Neuman for American Rifleman in Colonial Guns of America wrote:
Hunting Ammunition: It is evident from the variety of buck and ball sizes combined in the same bullet molds that the 18th-Century hunter relied on mixed loads according to his prey and the prevailing conditions. Unlike the trained soldier who shot a round ball .04 to .06 caliber smaller than the bore to allow for blackpowder fouling (he would normally fire in excess of 60 rounds in battle), the hunter, limited to one or two shots against most game, would load his smoothbore with a round bullet wrapped in greased cloth or thin leather for large animals. This tightly fitted “patched” ball could easily make a 10” group within the normal range of 30 to 60 yds.
Is this guys facts and research off the mark?
-
George C. Neuman for American Rifleman in Colonial Guns of America wrote:[quote\) Hunting Ammunition: It is evident from the variety of buck and ball sizes combined in the same bullet molds that the 18th-Century hunter relied on mixed loads according to his prey and the prevailing conditions. Unlike the trained soldier who shot a round ball .04 to .06 caliber smaller than the bore to allow for blackpowder fouling (he would normally fire in excess of 60 rounds in battle), the hunter, limited to one or two shots against most game, would load his smoothbore with a round bullet wrapped in greased cloth or thin leather for large animals. This tightly fitted “patched” ball could easily make a 10” group within the normal range of 30 to 60 yds.
Is this guys facts and research off the mark?
[/quote]
facts? research? There is nothing here where he has supplied any information to substantiate his statement.
I would say this statement has bits of information that can be proven to be historical and bits that are contrary to the historical record of writings, documents, surviving originals, archeological evidence, etc.
-
I like to shoot all day long without swabbing so I guess I'm out of the PC loop.No grass,leaves or any flora and fauna will ever see the darkness of my bore. It's still an interesting thread but I just can't take the chance of feeding something foreign down my 310 dollar barrel at the risk of scouring the bore.With a clean patch,I know the bore will be fine.With the other stuff,there is a risk of scouring.(dirt,sand etc...)
Anybody tell me how Smoothbore competitions at your local club or at the big shoots go as far as rules regarding their loading of round balls?
(I've read somewhere that English and French tradeguns dug up in some of the old forts and other archeological digs were loaded with patch and ball. Michilimilimac?(sp) )
-
Patching would slow the loading process but so would an over powder wad.
So in this context it seems that powder, ball and wad to hold the ball in place would be the best answer. Old blanket or much of anything else would work.
One other things that we moderns have to consider. If the shooter wanted accuracy he would likely not use a SB.
Its really difficult to get inside people's heads. When you start trying to get inside the NATIVE'S head things REALLY get strange. Since magic and "medicine" can get involved.
I read an account of a man who after being captured lived with the Indians for years. At some point he was shot by native but not killed. The recovered ball had various strings and other items attached to it as I recall. Apparently in an attempt to make it more deadly. ?
How this would effect the accuracy I could not say.
Dan
-
Something to remember is that moths are not newly invented, and they love wool blankets. So, every native village should have been full of wadding material. Thinner tightly woven material would be rare in the wilderness. Unless smoothbore had a Knox patent breech, the fire enters from the side putting a spin on the ball, making it inaccurate. IMHO.
Hungry Horse
-
Hungry Horse - I gotta tell you I don't see how ignition from a vent is going to impart spin on the ball. And if it did, wouldn't that simply make it more stable/accurate. That's why we rifle barrels, to get that spin.
No flame - maybe I misunderstood what your'e saying.
-
As a kid I had a Pattern 42 smooth bore percussion musket, this particular type looks a lot like a Pat 53 Enfield that you would all be familiar with. I used to hunt rabbits with it using a patched 65 cal ball cast from an old steel scissor mould belonging to a set of belt pistols !! I could knock the head of a rabbit regularly at 30 to 40 yards, and hit him in the chest out to 50yds. I found the old girl pretty reliable, I think I may have used dishwashing detergent as patch lube. She was a handy old gun until my late little brother put a charge of Nobels no 69 smokelsee in her, realised his mistake, laid it outside the outdoor privy with a lenght of string around the trigger, you can imagine the rest.
-
I've been shooting trade guns for thirty years, and IMHO the absolute best load I could shoot for accuracy was a patched round ball on top of an old hard fiber shotgun wad, that was about an inch long. When I ran out of those wads, I never found a load as accurate. I think the long wad allowed the patched ball to exit the barrel much like you would spit out a grape, with no spin. Stacking thinner wads didn't seem to do the trick. The next best load was a nearly bore size ball dropped on top of the powder, with a blanket wadding dipped in hot grease/tallow mix, and left to dry. These shoot best after the gun has shot a few rounds, oddly enough. The wadding load never needed swabbing during a match. Not the case with the fiber wad load.
I have tried patching of all kinds,even buckskin, as well as many different period materials as wadding i.e. rawhide wads,and cards, and found greased blanket wadding the best period load.
Rifling imparts a controlled spin on the ball. If the spin is not controlled the ball will no fly true.
Hungry Horse
-
This is true - the ball must spin around it's axis, left to right or right to left to be accurate, not rolling of back-spinning.
A ball launched without any spin, it would seem to me, would then fly like a knuckle ball from a pitcher's hand, wobbling or bobbing in flight just the same, however, the faster it goes the less the wobble and the more accurate the shot and therefore the longer range of reasonable flight - at some point, probably at some range, and most likely due to a defect in it's shape, ie: standing sprue or air pocket inside, then takes on a spin which with more range becomes severe enough to make it fly like a curve ball, right, left, up, down or any combination of these - my theory. I have watched patched balls fly seemingly straight left to right, arcing with their trajectory, then zing off to one side or the other as they take on a sping.(I assume). They were travelling straight at the 100yard target, yet swerved off missing by a good 3 feet. The gun in both instances was a 20 bore, shooting snugly patched balls, but wiht only 65gr. 2F powder.
When watching Taylor's shot - the ball seemingly went in a straigth line, barely arcing due to the 85gr. of powder,and ont swerving off line. Sufice to say, Ross's shots did not all swerve off line, only some.
Much to ponder- if interested in this stuff.